Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add safeguards section to explicit contract disclosure docs for 2.9.1 and 3.1 #774
Add safeguards section to explicit contract disclosure docs for 2.9.1 and 3.1 #774
Changes from 1 commit
659208f
683f0ad
f1748f4
221b505
b3fd4f3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
According to our style guide, italics are used to draw attention to non-UI words.
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.
@cathyjung-da Underscores don't seem to be resolving to italics on my local preview, can I confirm that it resolves correctly on your end?
I also see that Buyer and Seller parties are emphasized with asterisks in the rest of the docs. Should those be changed as well?
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.
Hi @juliuswilliam-da, thank you for raising this! I used Github's default comment feature to italicize the text, which used underscores, but according to this doc we're supposed to use single asterisk, like Buyer
*
Buyer*
, to italicize text in rst. I began to support the doc team relatively recently, and just learned about this also.I see that Buyer and Seller are bolded in the rest of the doc. I'm not sure how they didn't get noticed and revised sooner, but yes, according to our style guide, we're supposed italicize all the Buyer and Seller with italics and bold them only if they are UI elements.
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 would try to avoid overuse of variations of
contract/contractually
as it's not clear (at least to me) what type of restrictions are you referring to. Are they business logic restrictions (e.g. enforced through asserts) or Daml model restrictions (e.g. based on authorization/visibility).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 see how it can be confusing.
I am referring to business logic restrictions here.
Would replacement of ''contractually'' with ''mutually'' be more accurate?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
IOU
is not multi-signatory, is it?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.
What I think you are referring here is suggesting as a good practice to use preconditions (e.g.
assert
) on contracts creation and choice execution. If this is the case, I don't see how this applies specifically to explicit disclosure as it is a general good practice in designing Daml models. Please correct me if you had a different interpretationThere 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.
Yes indeed, I forgot to correct that statement, thank you.
IOU is a single signatory contract created by Issuer (a party trusted by both the seller and buyer)
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 agree preconditions are a recommended best practice for Daml code in general.
I feel the "preconditions" section do not provide enough emphasis on business logic assertion, and may be skipped over a developer when starting to develop with Daml. (Maybe a section on business logic assertion via on-ledger
contracts
when developing workflows in the this section could be helpful?)I wanted to call it out here as
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.