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
Right now, my contracts are generic for just 1 type of datum and 1 type of redeemer. Granted, these can be enums, but, importantly, this still only allows 1 Validator per contract.
That's a bad constraint.
I want, at the very least, to provide a pattern to allow a contract writer to include multiple validator scripts in their contract. It might be as simple as doing nested datums and having one off-chain datum type that will hold the necessary on-chain datums, but we should make sure that this can be type checked before submission.
Something like this might work and just make the contract generic for MyDatums and your implementation will enable the matching to happen. But this is far from a pit-of-success solution for consumers. Might be a good stop-gap, since it's a less common pattern probably.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
MitchTurner
changed the title
Allow multiple validator scripts in a contract
Allow Datums and Redeemers for multiple validator scripts in a contract
Sep 21, 2023
Right now, my contracts are generic for just 1 type of datum and 1 type of redeemer. Granted, these can be
enum
s, but, importantly, this still only allows 1 Validator per contract.That's a bad constraint.
I want, at the very least, to provide a pattern to allow a contract writer to include multiple validator scripts in their contract. It might be as simple as doing nested datums and having one off-chain datum type that will hold the necessary on-chain datums, but we should make sure that this can be type checked before submission.
Something like this might work and just make the contract generic for
MyDatums
and your implementation will enable the matching to happen. But this is far from a pit-of-success solution for consumers. Might be a good stop-gap, since it's a less common pattern probably.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: