Skip to content
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

upgrade CW packages to v2 #840

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

upgrade CW packages to v2 #840

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

NoahSaso
Copy link
Member

@NoahSaso NoahSaso commented Jun 17, 2024

@NoahSaso
Copy link
Member Author

blocked on public-awesome/cw-nfts#160

@mintthemoon
Copy link

I'm looking into this, there's a bit of a dependency snag to resolve here -- cw-nfts actually depends on this repo, for the cw-paginate-storage package: https://github.com/public-awesome/cw-nfts/blob/v0.19.0/Cargo.toml#L28

I can't get the cw721 package to compile without updating or removing this dependency. There's only one place the package is used and it only relies on the paginate_map_values query defined here.

Since it's only called once and the implementation is hardly any longer than the function call, maybe the best solution is to inline it and stop relying on the package?

@NoahSaso
Copy link
Member Author

I'm looking into this, there's a bit of a dependency snag to resolve here -- cw-nfts actually depends on this repo, for the cw-paginate-storage package: https://github.com/public-awesome/cw-nfts/blob/v0.19.0/Cargo.toml#L28

I can't get the cw721 package to compile without updating or removing this dependency. There's only one place the package is used and it only relies on the paginate_map_values query defined here.

Since it's only called once and the implementation is hardly any longer than the function call, maybe the best solution is to inline it and stop relying on the package?

omg nooo, thank you for figuring this all out 🙏

i'm very down for that solution. it sounds best to me to depend on fewer packages if the reliance is so trivial.

@mintthemoon
Copy link

Actually I see they're not even using it for pagination now that I look closer at the implementation, passing None for both bounds. So I'd say that's definitely the way to go, code is much more clear without the indirection anyways.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants