Mislabeled field in graph

[jmoggr]

claimID is mislabeled as tokenID in the graph. Etherscan shows the same value in the correctly labeled field.

[bitbeckers]

Good catch. But I don't view this as a bug.

This is something we specifically added to the Graph. The subgraph has Claims, which have an ID, so ClaimIDs, that consists of the contract address + the tokenID of the claim. This is because if we have multiple hypercert contracts you can have similar tokenIDs representing different claims in different contracts, but unique combinations of contract + tokenID. Having a claim with an ID and claimID seemed more confusing to me.

So this tokenID is the actual token in the contract. Both claims and fractions relate to a tokenID in the contract. @ryscheng any thoughts?

[jmoggr]

That makes sense. Maybe the tokenID of the claim can be labeled typeID? That is how it is often referred to in the contract code.

This is something that could be cleared up in future documentation. As a complete novice it took me a while to differentiate the different tokenIDs because they only 1 apart after minting.

[ryscheng]

For my own understanding right now, I think this is the current lingo. @bitbeckers can you correct me if I'm wrong?

tokenID = typeID + fractionID
claimID = contractAddress + tokenID

That seems reasonable for now, though it might be nice to make things really explicit somewhere, so we don't have to rely on client-side parsing?
i.e.

{
  contractAddress: "",
  typeID: "",
  fractionID: "",
}