-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve Dispute module functions #60
Conversation
client.dispute.whitelistDisputeTags({ | ||
tag: "testTag", | ||
allowed: true, | ||
describe("[Write Functions] Should be able to", async function () { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All write functions are skipped right now. Are they working?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doesn't work unless we have a working ArbitrationPolicy fixture
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, setDisputeJudgement won't work unless we set up the whitelisted Arbitration relayer contract (or whatever it's called)
linkToDisputeEvidence: string; | ||
targetTag: string; | ||
export type CancelDisputeRequest = { | ||
disputeId: number | string | bigint; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we just use either number or string here. Otherwise users have to figure out which types to use.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think bigint is ok here. If a user uses ethers/wagmi to read directly from the contract, that output is bigint type.
No description provided.