You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, we do not differentiate between these two types of Data Keys in the ERC725Y. But maybe there should be a standard way of treating data depending on the type of the Data
Querying any Unset Data Key should return: 0x
Querying a Deleted Data Key should return a specific value based on the previous Data Value of that Data key:
@b00ste we cannot use the case of BitArray for this issue because it is not a valueType, it is a valueContent.
A BitArray can be used as a way to represent value stored as different type, whether as a bytes1, bytes2, etc... In the Key Manager we use bytes32 for the permission ranges to have up to 256 possible permission, but any other bytesN , can be used if less options are necessary (for instance 8 options would only need bytes1).
So I guess BitArray does not apply in this case, and this issue is only related to valueTypes defined in LSP2
Currently, we do not differentiate between these two types of Data Keys in the ERC725Y. But maybe there should be a standard way of treating data depending on the type of the Data
Querying any Unset Data Key should return:
0x
Querying a Deleted Data Key should return a specific value based on the previous Data Value of that Data key:
bytes -
0x00
bytes1 -
0x00
bytes2 -
0x0000
[...]
bytes31 -
0x00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
bytes32 -
0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
uint8 -
0x00
uint16 -
0x0000
[...]
uint248 -
0x00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
uint256 -
0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
string -
0x00
address -
0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
BitArray -0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
CompactBytesArray:
0x0000
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: