Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 11, 2023. It is now read-only.

[Feature] SDK for creating and reading hypercerts #1

Open
4 tasks done
bitbeckers opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 3 comments
Open
4 tasks done

[Feature] SDK for creating and reading hypercerts #1

bitbeckers opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Milestone

Comments

@bitbeckers
Copy link
Collaborator

bitbeckers commented Dec 2, 2022

Goal

  • Typed
  • JSON specification metadata (supporting both structured and unstructured data. Structured should be required)
  • Graph client for Indexer
  • Validity checking of metadata
  • Managing IPFS state
  • Interacting with (typed) contracts

User stories

  • As a developer, I want to be able to pull the SDK from npm so I can create a new hypercert
  • As a developer, I want to be able to pull the SDK from npm so I can query hypercerts for display
  • As a developer, I want to be able to pull the SDK from npm so I can validate user input again the metadata schema
  • As a developer, I want to be able to pull the SDK from npm so I can generate metadata for a hypercert, including the image

Technical

  • Autopublish contract types via protocol repo to npm, load contract types in SDK via dependencies
  • packages monorepo managed via Lerna
  • GitHub Action to publish SDK on npm when creating release
  • documentation per package in README
  • CI/CD for testing package build
  • no web3 provider in the box, but require a provider for mutations

Interface

Metadata

  • generate()
  • store()
  • read()

Hypercerts

  • mint()
@Jipperism
Copy link
Collaborator

@bitbeckers would it make sense to export both the validateClaimData and validateMetaData, but also run them inside the storeMetaData function and return early if an error is thrown?

@Jipperism
Copy link
Collaborator

@bitbeckers furthermore, seems like the entire ipfs-http-client is incompatible with SSR anyways. We might want to reconsider using it.

@bitbeckers
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bitbeckers commented Jan 8, 2023

@ryscheng moving this feature to review as the tasks are checked of. We did not invest time in the CI/CD part and I think we should reserve some time for that after the spec stabilized a little more (we itterating rapidly atm)

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
Status: Review
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants