Skip to content

CAIP-341 - Extension ID Target Type Specification #341

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

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ffmcgee725
Copy link

Defining extension id as a valid target type for wallet data.

@ffmcgee725 ffmcgee725 changed the title CAIP-X - Extension ID Target Type Specification CAIP-341 - Extension ID Target Type Specification Dec 12, 2024
@ffmcgee725 ffmcgee725 requested a review from adonesky1 December 12, 2024 17:58
@ffmcgee725 ffmcgee725 requested a review from jiexi December 12, 2024 18:36
---
caip: 341
title: Extension ID Target Type Specification
author: [Joao Tavares] (@ffmcgee725)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
author: [Joao Tavares] (@ffmcgee725)
author: Joao Tavares (@ffmcgee725)

i'm hoping it's this line, and not something else, that is tripping up the github internal YAML parser
image

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

resolved in 916e37e

@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

I think this closes #294 ?

Example of establishing a connection and sending a message:

```ts
const port = chrome.runtime.connect(walletData.target.value);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

really like this pattern here... but realistically it's an array so you need an index

but more importantly than correcting this typo.... I think it raises the question of how valuable is it for target to be an array

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

discuss at monday's meeting? approve either way? i feel like we might be overdue to decide on that array-of-objects/single-object question...

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

discussed out-of-band, array is fine, we should publish this as a draft to get more eyes on it, and address later if evaluators/integraters push back

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fixed in 913a61f

@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

i think we're good to merge with any WG participant approving

@ffmcgee725 ffmcgee725 requested a review from pedrouid April 15, 2025 14:10
@jiexi
Copy link

jiexi commented Apr 15, 2025

i think this should be inlined into the CAIP that describes the new transport and interface itself #348

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.

6 participants