Are there type declarations missing in the Mint721 sign typed data example?

[bobwith2bees]

When signing a lazy minting request (ERC721 and ERC1155 examples), the signed typed data request appears incomplete.

https://docs.rarible.org/asset/creating-an-asset#erc721-lazy-minting step 3:

    "Mint721": [
        { name: "tokenId", type: "uint256" },
        { name: "tokenURI", type: "string" },
        { name: "creators", type: "Part[]" },
        { name: "royalties", type: "Part[]" }
      ],

Shouldn't all the data types presented in the message to sign be included? In the case of the EIP721 it might look like:

    "Mint721": [
        {"name": "@type", "type": "string"},
        {"name": "contract", "type": "address"},
        {"name": "tokenId", "type": "uint256"},
        {"name": "tokenURI", "type": "string"},
        {"name": "uri", "type": "string"},
        {"name": "creators", "type": "Part[]"},
        {"name": "royalties", "type": "Part[]"}
      ],

This would mirror the message json below:

"primaryType": "Mint721",
"message": {
    "@type": "ERC721",
    "contract": "0xB0EA149212Eb707a1E5FC1D2d3fD318a8d94cf05",
    "tokenId": tokenId,
    "tokenURI": "/ipfs/QmWLsBu6nS4ovaHbGAXprD1qEssJu4r5taQfB74sCG51tp"
    "uri": "/ipfs/QmWLsBu6nS4ovaHbGAXprD1qEssJu4r5taQfB74sCG51tp",
...

Since this might be impacting to the signatures generated, I wanted to double check. Thanks!

[bobwith2bees]

FYI packages/react-app/src/rarible/lazyMint.js line 25 appends tokenURI to the message being signed within the sign() function. This is inconsistent with the documentation. Perhaps the validation contract expects "tokenURI" instead of "uri"?

But it appears the validating contract signs/"protects" the basic token id, tokenURI, creator and royalty splits. The rest of the provided json message appears to be ignored (i.e. @type,contract, uri) I think this can be covered with documentation.

[evgenynacu]

@bobwith2bees you are right, this doc is outdated. Will work on this
Could you tell me why you don't use SDK? It's implemented there

[bobwith2bees]

@bobwith2bees you are right, this doc is outdated. Will work on this Could you tell me why you don't use SDK? It's implemented there

I am using the Dart language and the Openapi generated code from the protocol spec. If the API is the protocol, I thought I would be safe. Especially if I can re-generate the client when the protocol changes.

I am only using a few use cases - lazy minting and perhaps checking status and owner of NFTs created. Signing is already going to have to be in a secure cloud service. I may just have to move the whole rari protocol handling there. Will see.

P.S. I already have given Matt a list of errors in the doc, so I am trying to be part of the solution. ;-)

[evgenynacu]

@rarible/tech-writer-protocol-team pls see this

[mazinden]

fixed

[bobwith2bees]

Did anyone test the corrections to verify the LazyMint API will accept signatures with that datatype configured? I still get 500 errors, with no further detail on what is actually failing with the signature. Should I file a bug on any 500 error?

Also the documentation is still inconsistent with itself. You really need to read and understand the example code to use the rarible protocol. Unfortunately the SDK is in a language I have little experience using.

Good news - if I can get this to work - I can open-source my dart/flutter based package I am developing for this.