Destroy standard #182
Destroy standard #182
Conversation
|
@ixje Done. |
Co-authored-by: ixje <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: ixje <[email protected]>
|
@ixje Can I add your name and email on |
|
No need. You authored it, I just gave some feedback. |
Co-authored-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
|
@AnnaShaleva All done. |
Jim8y
requested review from
AnnaShaleva,
cschuchardt88,
vncoelho and
roman-khimov
|
|
||
| ==Motivation== | ||
|
|
||
| Contracts that are not relevant anymore may need to be destroyed. Neo N3 has provided contract destroy mechanism but it hasn't been summarized in a standard. This standard will show details. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep. Partial deploy cost refund, perhaps. But should we reward for freeing up all that state, too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that some minimal GAS refund would be interesting
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a different topic, this NEP is about some standard interface provided by contracts. It stays the same irrespective of refunding.
|
|
||
| <code>destroy</code> method can have multi parameters for any specific purpose since it's an operation only for contract owner. | ||
|
|
||
| This function SHOULD check whether the <code>signer</code> address equals the <code>owner</code> hash of contract to avoid security risks. This function SHOULD use the SYSCALL <code>Neo.Runtime.CheckWitness</code> to verify the <code>signer</code>. Details has been explained in [NEP-30](https://github.com/superboyiii/proposals/blob/upgrade-standard/nep-30.mediawiki). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function? The same as I asked in the other PR of update.
| </pre> | ||
| This method MUST invoke the <code>destroy</code> method of <code>ContractManagement</code> contract when the contract is destroyed. | ||
|
|
||
| <code>destroy</code> method can have multi parameters for any specific purpose since it's an operation only for contract owner. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can avoid this and have a specific (parameterless) interface just like for update. Suppose I want to create a NEP-DESTROY-compatible CLI command, it'd be harder to do this if one contract has parameters and the other does not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we strictly require zero parameters in the standard, or it is just a "SHOULD" requirement?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the practical value of parameters here? I can only imagine moving tokens from contract address before deletion (which might require some address), but likely they'll be sent to owner or this can be handled in a different manner by contract. Conditional (based on parameters) destroy? Not likely to be useful, owner can do anything already, so if he decides to destroy he will do this. So I'd go with MUST here.
|
|
||
| This function SHOULD check whether the <code>signer</code> address equals the <code>owner</code> hash of contract to avoid security risks. This function SHOULD use the SYSCALL <code>Neo.Runtime.CheckWitness</code> to verify the <code>signer</code>. Details has been explained in [NEP-30](https://github.com/superboyiii/proposals/blob/upgrade-standard/nep-30.mediawiki). | ||
|
|
||
| This function is not allowed to call another contract when executing <code>destroy</code> method of native <code>ContractManagement</code> contract since <code>RequiredCallFlags = CallFlags.States | CallFlags.AllowNotify</code> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like details of ContractManagement operation, maybe this can be signified.
| This function SHOULD check whether the <code>signer</code> address equals the <code>owner</code> hash of contract to avoid security risks. This function SHOULD use the SYSCALL <code>Neo.Runtime.CheckWitness</code> to verify the <code>signer</code>. Details has been explained in [NEP-30](https://github.com/superboyiii/proposals/blob/upgrade-standard/nep-30.mediawiki). | ||
|
|
||
| This function is not allowed to call another contract when executing <code>destroy</code> method of native <code>ContractManagement</code> contract since <code>RequiredCallFlags = CallFlags.States | CallFlags.AllowNotify</code> | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think there should be some recommendation on immediate exit after ContractManagement call. While technically we can still execute a lot of code afterwards, it's somewhat in the grey zone (see discussion in neo-project/neo#3290 (comment) as well), so I'd recommend to do any other actions before calling ContractManagement.
No description provided.