feat(NFT): Add option types and add missing memo parameter

[willemneal]

This adds the missing memo argument needed by nft_transfer and changes types inspired by Paras' usage. Notably using a type alias for Payout of a hashmap. Also adds more options so that the API is less strict.

https://github.com/ParasHQ/paras-marketplace-contract/blob/ac35d84a1af7ea369c3916db32af0dd1e5a43024/paras-marketplace-contract/src/external.rs#L7-L14

 fn nft_transfer_payout(
        &mut self,
        receiver_id: AccountId,
        token_id: TokenId,
        approval_id: Option<u64>,
        memo: Option<String>,  // This is ignored by Paras
        balance: U128,
        max_len_payout: Option<u32>,
    );

• Need to specify that a nft_transfer_payout that returns a bad "payout" should still payout to old token owner

[willemneal]

@mikedotexe @mattlockyer Thoughts?

[emarai]

I'm unsure why the balance would be optional, so if they could explain their choice that would be great.

Hi @willemneal , regarding why the balance is optional, we picked it up from near-examples/nft-market. But it seems it has been changed to be no longer optional (https://github.com/near-examples/nft-market/commit/ba2b5ce07043061059a5482e815433101d4c455f#diff-bd87736f4e1006e27d541b8adc5bc34e439b4c1ce8c234cefc752408d01eb369L130)

[microchipgnu]

I agree with removing the wrapper on Payout. Don't see its utility.

[willemneal]

I reverted the payout type from this PR. It can be discussed in the future. However, this PR does fix several issues with the current standard, which shouldn't be breaking changes to those that have implemented it. For example, an Option type is encoded the same way as a normal one just isn't a required parameter. Furthermore the memo parameter was missing which is required for nft_transfer.

@mikedotexe @BenKurrek

[willemneal]

@mikedotexe Who should I contact on the Dev Platform team? Is there a Dev Platform team?

[willemneal]

@mikedotexe

[willemneal]

@mikedotexe

[willemneal]

@mikedotexe

[willemneal]

@mikedotexe @BenKurrek @mattlockyer

[frol]

@near/wg-contract-standards I feel this NEP is well-received, so we can cast a vote here.

[mfornet]

LGTM.

[frol]

We are reaching a consensus, but there is still a chance to influence the decision. I have transitioned this proposal to the final-comment period, and we will make the final vote on the next Contract Standards Working Group call, which will be the last chance to speak before we merge this PR.

[ori-near]

@near/wg-contract-standards – As @frol mentioned above, we would like to schedule a working group meeting to review this NEP. Before we proceed, we would like to get closer to a consensus on this NEP.

@abacabadabacaba Could you please fully read this NEP and comment in the thread if you are leaning with approving or rejecting it? Please make sure to include your rationale and any feedback that you have for the author. Thank you.

[abacabadabacaba]

I lean with approving this NEP. Adding a memo parameter seems useful given that the underlying transfer function takes it, and making max_len_payout optional also makes sense.

[frol]

Just to resolve ambiguity, I want to re-emphasize that I lean towards approving this NEP extension as it brings useful features in a backward-compatible way, so there is no risk of breaking existing ecosystem.

[ori-near]

As the moderator, I would like to thank the author @willemneal for submitting this NEP extension, and for the @near/wg-contract-standards working group members for your review. Based on the voting indications above, it seems like this proposal is close to a decision. We are therefore scheduling the second Contract Standards Working group meeting next week, where this NEP can enter the final voting stage. We encourage anyone who is interested to join the meeting.

Meeting Info
📅 Date: Friday, Nov 18, 4pm UTC
🗒️ Topic: NEP-276 Voting
✏️ Register

[ori-near]

Thank you to everyone who attended the second Contract Standards Working Group meeting today! The working group members reviewed the NEP and reached the following consensus:

Status: Approved

• @frol feat(NFT): Add option types and add missing memo parameter #276 (comment)
• @abacabadabacaba feat(NFT): Add option types and add missing memo parameter #276 (comment)
• @mfornet feat(NFT): Add option types and add missing memo parameter #276 (review)

Meeting Recording

@willemneal Thank you for authoring this NEP!

Next Steps:

• @ori-near to merge NEP

Implementation Status:
NEAR SDK Rust: PR is in the final stage waiting the author to address the final comments (potentially needs to be forked to run the last mile) near/near-sdk-rs#778
NEAR SDK JavaScript: Awaiting community contribution

Community contributions to the SDKs are welcome!