XLS-39d: rename lsfAllowClawback to lsfAllowTrustLineClawback
#119
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was referenced Jul 11, 2023
kennyzlei
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2023
|
Should |
|
@ckniffen Yes it is implicitly renamed as well, but it's not mentioned in the spec |
|
I think it should be mentioned in the spec as that is how you enable and asf have different values than lsf |
|
@ckniffen I don't think other specs mention it either. I guess it's implied that they will have the same name 🤷 |
sappenin
approved these changes
Jul 13, 2023
kennyzlei
pushed a commit
to XRPLF/rippled
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2023
Reason for this change is here XRPLF/XRPL-Standards#119 We would want to be explicit that this flag is exclusively for trustline. For new token types(eg. CFT), they will not utilize this flag for clawback, instead, they will turn clawback on/off on the token-level, which is more versatile.
ckeshava
pushed a commit
to ckeshava/rippled
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2023
Reason for this change is here XRPLF/XRPL-Standards#119 We would want to be explicit that this flag is exclusively for trustline. For new token types(eg. CFT), they will not utilize this flag for clawback, instead, they will turn clawback on/off on the token-level, which is more versatile.
ckeshava
pushed a commit
to ckeshava/rippled
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 25, 2023
Reason for this change is here XRPLF/XRPL-Standards#119 We would want to be explicit that this flag is exclusively for trustline. For new token types(eg. CFT), they will not utilize this flag for clawback, instead, they will turn clawback on/off on the token-level, which is more versatile.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
We are renaming
lsfAllowClawbacktolsfAllowTrustLineClawbackto make it clearer that this flag is specifically used for IOUs. By renaming it, we want to separate this flag from potential future token types (like CFT) that may also support clawback functionality. This change is aimed at addressing technical debt caused by IOUs, so that we can avoid adding new flags at the account level in the future. Instead, we plan to control settings at the token level, rather than the account level.Eg. CFT will have a token-level toggle for clawback and not use
lsfAllowClawback, so it's better to rename this flag to be explicit that it is only used for trust line, to avoid confusions in the future.