[Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements #62

Open
Open
[Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements#62

Description

@navis83
navis83
opened on Sep 9, 2020

Hello, in last week I tried to create, deploy and use my own SmartContract that in few words provides both methods changing the internal contract variable status and others that won't change them.
Here I report my analysis and possible suggestions to improve SmartContract definition and usability

  • SmartContract SDK: there is not any SDK allowing to define a smart contract with latest available sc-api-support which I had to extract from contract-executor.jar to make tests on implemented functionalities --> It would be better to have an example project including different SmartContract templates (Token Template, Elaboration Template, etc) which user can easily clone and use in its workspace before to deploy on BlockChain

  • SmartContract Search Engine: there is not any service allowing to search for available SmartContracts, making the first creation more difficult as the online documentation is not always aligned to latest available sources --> it might be useful to create a service to search deployed smartcontracts based on their main description/name or method description/name avoiding to create new SCs if there is one already created for something

  • SmartContract Update: there is no way to update/change/fix/delete/invalidate a smartcontract, so once performed the deployment of a wrong Smartcontract, it cannot be removed anymore from blockchain, allowing anyone to loose money using that. More, if there is a little bug (because I remember there is not SDK to test it exhaustively before MainNet) the owner cannot fix it. --> it might be have sense to consider a possible way to update smartcontracts, for example adding a status on it which owner can change in order to make it ONLINE, OFFLINE, INVALIDATED, causing respectively the usability, not usability or dis-mission of specific SC. About SC update, it might be considered an INVALIDATION of previously defined SC, new deployment of new one and redirect from INVALIDATED to new ONLINE one which has also its own Address.

  • Java Based SmartContract, Inheritance and Overloading: currently, the only way to reuse a smartcontract is to directly request it from new smartcontract, causing double fees payment because of double smart contract execution --> I think that if "SmartContract Search Engine" is available, it would be easy to identify available SmartContract source to be extended and overloaded in some cases, as the contracts are available in the blockchain and can be identified as in java by package.Name, not necessarily with address. So my suggestion is to consider the inheritance and overloading for smart contracts, reducing their number and making them more used

  • SmartContract execution, status change and related fees:
    -- whenever a SC method is requested, the SC is executed on blockchain causing a consensus amount trusted nodes for its execution. I assume that such consensus is required if there is a smartcontract status change, but if there is not, why execute a consensus? --> I think that if the requested operation is an operation not changing the status, the consensus is not required as nothing is written on blockchain.
    -- From development point of view, there is a limitation about "failed status change operations": currently, the client using the smartcontract can provide the "notSaveNewState" parameter in order to inform the executor that the status has to be saved or not, but what happen if during the operation execution there is an error? The status is saved however without real change of Smartcontract status, charging the client about the status change fees.--> I think it would be better to introduce in smart contract operation like commit() / rallback() to be used in code when execution is finished in order to properly save the status of SmartContract on blockchain or rallback to previous status in case of failure, avoiding unuseful Blockchain change and extra client fees.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

      Skip to content
      [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements #62
      Open
      Open
      [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements#62
      Description
      @navis83
      navis83
      opened on Sep 9, 2020
      Hello, in last week I tried to create, deploy and use my own SmartContract that in few words provides both methods changing the internal contract variable status and others that won't change them.
      
Here I report my analysis and possible suggestions to improve SmartContract definition and usability
      • SmartContract SDK: there is not any SDK allowing to define a smart contract with latest available sc-api-support which I had to extract from contract-executor.jar to make tests on implemented functionalities --> It would be better to have an example project including different SmartContract templates (Token Template, Elaboration Template, etc) which user can easily clone and use in its workspace before to deploy on BlockChain
      • SmartContract Search Engine: there is not any service allowing to search for available SmartContracts, making the first creation more difficult as the online documentation is not always aligned to latest available sources --> it might be useful to create a service to search deployed smartcontracts based on their main description/name or method description/name avoiding to create new SCs if there is one already created for something
      • SmartContract Update: there is no way to update/change/fix/delete/invalidate a smartcontract, so once performed the deployment of a wrong Smartcontract, it cannot be removed anymore from blockchain, allowing anyone to loose money using that. More, if there is a little bug (because I remember there is not SDK to test it exhaustively before MainNet) the owner cannot fix it. --> it might be have sense to consider a possible way to update smartcontracts, for example adding a status on it which owner can change in order to make it ONLINE, OFFLINE, INVALIDATED, causing respectively the usability, not usability or dis-mission of specific SC. About SC update, it might be considered an INVALIDATION of previously defined SC, new deployment of new one and redirect from INVALIDATED to new ONLINE one which has also its own Address.
      • Java Based SmartContract, Inheritance and Overloading: currently, the only way to reuse a smartcontract is to directly request it from new smartcontract, causing double fees payment because of double smart contract execution --> I think that if "SmartContract Search Engine" is available, it would be easy to identify available SmartContract source to be extended and overloaded in some cases, as the contracts are available in the blockchain and can be identified as in java by package.Name, not necessarily with address. So my suggestion is to consider the inheritance and overloading for smart contracts, reducing their number and making them more used
      • SmartContract execution, status change and related fees:
        
-- whenever a SC method is requested, the SC is executed on blockchain causing a consensus amount trusted nodes for its execution. I assume that such consensus is required if there is a smartcontract status change, but if there is not, why execute a consensus? --> I think that if the requested operation is an operation not changing the status, the consensus is not required as nothing is written on blockchain.
        
-- From development point of view, there is a limitation about "failed status change operations": currently, the client using the smartcontract can provide the "notSaveNewState" parameter in order to inform the executor that the status has to be saved or not, but what happen if during the operation execution there is an error? The status is saved however without real change of Smartcontract status, charging the client about the status change fees.--> I think it would be better to introduce in smart contract operation like commit() / rallback() to be used in code when execution is finished in order to properly save the status of SmartContract on blockchain or rallback to previous status in case of failure, avoiding unuseful Blockchain change and extra client fees.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

          Skip to content
          [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements #62
          Open
          Open
          [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements#62
          Description
          @navis83
          navis83
          opened on Sep 9, 2020
          Hello, in last week I tried to create, deploy and use my own SmartContract that in few words provides both methods changing the internal contract variable status and others that won't change them.
          
Here I report my analysis and possible suggestions to improve SmartContract definition and usability
          • SmartContract SDK: there is not any SDK allowing to define a smart contract with latest available sc-api-support which I had to extract from contract-executor.jar to make tests on implemented functionalities --> It would be better to have an example project including different SmartContract templates (Token Template, Elaboration Template, etc) which user can easily clone and use in its workspace before to deploy on BlockChain
          • SmartContract Search Engine: there is not any service allowing to search for available SmartContracts, making the first creation more difficult as the online documentation is not always aligned to latest available sources --> it might be useful to create a service to search deployed smartcontracts based on their main description/name or method description/name avoiding to create new SCs if there is one already created for something
          • SmartContract Update: there is no way to update/change/fix/delete/invalidate a smartcontract, so once performed the deployment of a wrong Smartcontract, it cannot be removed anymore from blockchain, allowing anyone to loose money using that. More, if there is a little bug (because I remember there is not SDK to test it exhaustively before MainNet) the owner cannot fix it. --> it might be have sense to consider a possible way to update smartcontracts, for example adding a status on it which owner can change in order to make it ONLINE, OFFLINE, INVALIDATED, causing respectively the usability, not usability or dis-mission of specific SC. About SC update, it might be considered an INVALIDATION of previously defined SC, new deployment of new one and redirect from INVALIDATED to new ONLINE one which has also its own Address.
          • Java Based SmartContract, Inheritance and Overloading: currently, the only way to reuse a smartcontract is to directly request it from new smartcontract, causing double fees payment because of double smart contract execution --> I think that if "SmartContract Search Engine" is available, it would be easy to identify available SmartContract source to be extended and overloaded in some cases, as the contracts are available in the blockchain and can be identified as in java by package.Name, not necessarily with address. So my suggestion is to consider the inheritance and overloading for smart contracts, reducing their number and making them more used
          • SmartContract execution, status change and related fees:
            
-- whenever a SC method is requested, the SC is executed on blockchain causing a consensus amount trusted nodes for its execution. I assume that such consensus is required if there is a smartcontract status change, but if there is not, why execute a consensus? --> I think that if the requested operation is an operation not changing the status, the consensus is not required as nothing is written on blockchain.
            
-- From development point of view, there is a limitation about "failed status change operations": currently, the client using the smartcontract can provide the "notSaveNewState" parameter in order to inform the executor that the status has to be saved or not, but what happen if during the operation execution there is an error? The status is saved however without real change of Smartcontract status, charging the client about the status change fees.--> I think it would be better to introduce in smart contract operation like commit() / rallback() to be used in code when execution is finished in order to properly save the status of SmartContract on blockchain or rallback to previous status in case of failure, avoiding unuseful Blockchain change and extra client fees.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements #62
              Open
              Open
              [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements#62
              Description
              @navis83
              navis83
              opened on Sep 9, 2020
              Hello, in last week I tried to create, deploy and use my own SmartContract that in few words provides both methods changing the internal contract variable status and others that won't change them.
              
Here I report my analysis and possible suggestions to improve SmartContract definition and usability
              • SmartContract SDK: there is not any SDK allowing to define a smart contract with latest available sc-api-support which I had to extract from contract-executor.jar to make tests on implemented functionalities --> It would be better to have an example project including different SmartContract templates (Token Template, Elaboration Template, etc) which user can easily clone and use in its workspace before to deploy on BlockChain
              • SmartContract Search Engine: there is not any service allowing to search for available SmartContracts, making the first creation more difficult as the online documentation is not always aligned to latest available sources --> it might be useful to create a service to search deployed smartcontracts based on their main description/name or method description/name avoiding to create new SCs if there is one already created for something
              • SmartContract Update: there is no way to update/change/fix/delete/invalidate a smartcontract, so once performed the deployment of a wrong Smartcontract, it cannot be removed anymore from blockchain, allowing anyone to loose money using that. More, if there is a little bug (because I remember there is not SDK to test it exhaustively before MainNet) the owner cannot fix it. --> it might be have sense to consider a possible way to update smartcontracts, for example adding a status on it which owner can change in order to make it ONLINE, OFFLINE, INVALIDATED, causing respectively the usability, not usability or dis-mission of specific SC. About SC update, it might be considered an INVALIDATION of previously defined SC, new deployment of new one and redirect from INVALIDATED to new ONLINE one which has also its own Address.
              • Java Based SmartContract, Inheritance and Overloading: currently, the only way to reuse a smartcontract is to directly request it from new smartcontract, causing double fees payment because of double smart contract execution --> I think that if "SmartContract Search Engine" is available, it would be easy to identify available SmartContract source to be extended and overloaded in some cases, as the contracts are available in the blockchain and can be identified as in java by package.Name, not necessarily with address. So my suggestion is to consider the inheritance and overloading for smart contracts, reducing their number and making them more used
              • SmartContract execution, status change and related fees:
                
-- whenever a SC method is requested, the SC is executed on blockchain causing a consensus amount trusted nodes for its execution. I assume that such consensus is required if there is a smartcontract status change, but if there is not, why execute a consensus? --> I think that if the requested operation is an operation not changing the status, the consensus is not required as nothing is written on blockchain.
                
-- From development point of view, there is a limitation about "failed status change operations": currently, the client using the smartcontract can provide the "notSaveNewState" parameter in order to inform the executor that the status has to be saved or not, but what happen if during the operation execution there is an error? The status is saved however without real change of Smartcontract status, charging the client about the status change fees.--> I think it would be better to introduce in smart contract operation like commit() / rallback() to be used in code when execution is finished in order to properly save the status of SmartContract on blockchain or rallback to previous status in case of failure, avoiding unuseful Blockchain change and extra client fees.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

                  Skip to content
                  [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements #62
                  Open
                  Open
                  [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements#62
                  Description
                  @navis83
                  navis83
                  opened on Sep 9, 2020
                  Hello, in last week I tried to create, deploy and use my own SmartContract that in few words provides both methods changing the internal contract variable status and others that won't change them.
                  
Here I report my analysis and possible suggestions to improve SmartContract definition and usability
                  • SmartContract SDK: there is not any SDK allowing to define a smart contract with latest available sc-api-support which I had to extract from contract-executor.jar to make tests on implemented functionalities --> It would be better to have an example project including different SmartContract templates (Token Template, Elaboration Template, etc) which user can easily clone and use in its workspace before to deploy on BlockChain
                  • SmartContract Search Engine: there is not any service allowing to search for available SmartContracts, making the first creation more difficult as the online documentation is not always aligned to latest available sources --> it might be useful to create a service to search deployed smartcontracts based on their main description/name or method description/name avoiding to create new SCs if there is one already created for something
                  • SmartContract Update: there is no way to update/change/fix/delete/invalidate a smartcontract, so once performed the deployment of a wrong Smartcontract, it cannot be removed anymore from blockchain, allowing anyone to loose money using that. More, if there is a little bug (because I remember there is not SDK to test it exhaustively before MainNet) the owner cannot fix it. --> it might be have sense to consider a possible way to update smartcontracts, for example adding a status on it which owner can change in order to make it ONLINE, OFFLINE, INVALIDATED, causing respectively the usability, not usability or dis-mission of specific SC. About SC update, it might be considered an INVALIDATION of previously defined SC, new deployment of new one and redirect from INVALIDATED to new ONLINE one which has also its own Address.
                  • Java Based SmartContract, Inheritance and Overloading: currently, the only way to reuse a smartcontract is to directly request it from new smartcontract, causing double fees payment because of double smart contract execution --> I think that if "SmartContract Search Engine" is available, it would be easy to identify available SmartContract source to be extended and overloaded in some cases, as the contracts are available in the blockchain and can be identified as in java by package.Name, not necessarily with address. So my suggestion is to consider the inheritance and overloading for smart contracts, reducing their number and making them more used
                  • SmartContract execution, status change and related fees:
                    
-- whenever a SC method is requested, the SC is executed on blockchain causing a consensus amount trusted nodes for its execution. I assume that such consensus is required if there is a smartcontract status change, but if there is not, why execute a consensus? --> I think that if the requested operation is an operation not changing the status, the consensus is not required as nothing is written on blockchain.
                    
-- From development point of view, there is a limitation about "failed status change operations": currently, the client using the smartcontract can provide the "notSaveNewState" parameter in order to inform the executor that the status has to be saved or not, but what happen if during the operation execution there is an error? The status is saved however without real change of Smartcontract status, charging the client about the status change fees.--> I think it would be better to introduce in smart contract operation like commit() / rallback() to be used in code when execution is finished in order to properly save the status of SmartContract on blockchain or rallback to previous status in case of failure, avoiding unuseful Blockchain change and extra client fees.
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    No labels
                    No labels
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                      Skip to content
                      [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements #62
                      Open
                      Open
                      [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements#62
                      Description
                      @navis83
                      navis83
                      opened on Sep 9, 2020
                      Hello, in last week I tried to create, deploy and use my own SmartContract that in few words provides both methods changing the internal contract variable status and others that won't change them.
                      
Here I report my analysis and possible suggestions to improve SmartContract definition and usability
                      • SmartContract SDK: there is not any SDK allowing to define a smart contract with latest available sc-api-support which I had to extract from contract-executor.jar to make tests on implemented functionalities --> It would be better to have an example project including different SmartContract templates (Token Template, Elaboration Template, etc) which user can easily clone and use in its workspace before to deploy on BlockChain
                      • SmartContract Search Engine: there is not any service allowing to search for available SmartContracts, making the first creation more difficult as the online documentation is not always aligned to latest available sources --> it might be useful to create a service to search deployed smartcontracts based on their main description/name or method description/name avoiding to create new SCs if there is one already created for something
                      • SmartContract Update: there is no way to update/change/fix/delete/invalidate a smartcontract, so once performed the deployment of a wrong Smartcontract, it cannot be removed anymore from blockchain, allowing anyone to loose money using that. More, if there is a little bug (because I remember there is not SDK to test it exhaustively before MainNet) the owner cannot fix it. --> it might be have sense to consider a possible way to update smartcontracts, for example adding a status on it which owner can change in order to make it ONLINE, OFFLINE, INVALIDATED, causing respectively the usability, not usability or dis-mission of specific SC. About SC update, it might be considered an INVALIDATION of previously defined SC, new deployment of new one and redirect from INVALIDATED to new ONLINE one which has also its own Address.
                      • Java Based SmartContract, Inheritance and Overloading: currently, the only way to reuse a smartcontract is to directly request it from new smartcontract, causing double fees payment because of double smart contract execution --> I think that if "SmartContract Search Engine" is available, it would be easy to identify available SmartContract source to be extended and overloaded in some cases, as the contracts are available in the blockchain and can be identified as in java by package.Name, not necessarily with address. So my suggestion is to consider the inheritance and overloading for smart contracts, reducing their number and making them more used
                      • SmartContract execution, status change and related fees:
                        
-- whenever a SC method is requested, the SC is executed on blockchain causing a consensus amount trusted nodes for its execution. I assume that such consensus is required if there is a smartcontract status change, but if there is not, why execute a consensus? --> I think that if the requested operation is an operation not changing the status, the consensus is not required as nothing is written on blockchain.
                        
-- From development point of view, there is a limitation about "failed status change operations": currently, the client using the smartcontract can provide the "notSaveNewState" parameter in order to inform the executor that the status has to be saved or not, but what happen if during the operation execution there is an error? The status is saved however without real change of Smartcontract status, charging the client about the status change fees.--> I think it would be better to introduce in smart contract operation like commit() / rallback() to be used in code when execution is finished in order to properly save the status of SmartContract on blockchain or rallback to previous status in case of failure, avoiding unuseful Blockchain change and extra client fees.
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        No labels
                        No labels
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                          Skip to content
                          [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements #62
                          Open
                          Open
                          [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements#62
                          Description
                          @navis83
                          navis83
                          opened on Sep 9, 2020
                          Hello, in last week I tried to create, deploy and use my own SmartContract that in few words provides both methods changing the internal contract variable status and others that won't change them.
                          
Here I report my analysis and possible suggestions to improve SmartContract definition and usability
                          • SmartContract SDK: there is not any SDK allowing to define a smart contract with latest available sc-api-support which I had to extract from contract-executor.jar to make tests on implemented functionalities --> It would be better to have an example project including different SmartContract templates (Token Template, Elaboration Template, etc) which user can easily clone and use in its workspace before to deploy on BlockChain
                          • SmartContract Search Engine: there is not any service allowing to search for available SmartContracts, making the first creation more difficult as the online documentation is not always aligned to latest available sources --> it might be useful to create a service to search deployed smartcontracts based on their main description/name or method description/name avoiding to create new SCs if there is one already created for something
                          • SmartContract Update: there is no way to update/change/fix/delete/invalidate a smartcontract, so once performed the deployment of a wrong Smartcontract, it cannot be removed anymore from blockchain, allowing anyone to loose money using that. More, if there is a little bug (because I remember there is not SDK to test it exhaustively before MainNet) the owner cannot fix it. --> it might be have sense to consider a possible way to update smartcontracts, for example adding a status on it which owner can change in order to make it ONLINE, OFFLINE, INVALIDATED, causing respectively the usability, not usability or dis-mission of specific SC. About SC update, it might be considered an INVALIDATION of previously defined SC, new deployment of new one and redirect from INVALIDATED to new ONLINE one which has also its own Address.
                          • Java Based SmartContract, Inheritance and Overloading: currently, the only way to reuse a smartcontract is to directly request it from new smartcontract, causing double fees payment because of double smart contract execution --> I think that if "SmartContract Search Engine" is available, it would be easy to identify available SmartContract source to be extended and overloaded in some cases, as the contracts are available in the blockchain and can be identified as in java by package.Name, not necessarily with address. So my suggestion is to consider the inheritance and overloading for smart contracts, reducing their number and making them more used
                          • SmartContract execution, status change and related fees:
                            
-- whenever a SC method is requested, the SC is executed on blockchain causing a consensus amount trusted nodes for its execution. I assume that such consensus is required if there is a smartcontract status change, but if there is not, why execute a consensus? --> I think that if the requested operation is an operation not changing the status, the consensus is not required as nothing is written on blockchain.
                            
-- From development point of view, there is a limitation about "failed status change operations": currently, the client using the smartcontract can provide the "notSaveNewState" parameter in order to inform the executor that the status has to be saved or not, but what happen if during the operation execution there is an error? The status is saved however without real change of Smartcontract status, charging the client about the status change fees.--> I think it would be better to introduce in smart contract operation like commit() / rallback() to be used in code when execution is finished in order to properly save the status of SmartContract on blockchain or rallback to previous status in case of failure, avoiding unuseful Blockchain change and extra client fees.
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            No labels
                            No labels
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                              Skip to content
                              [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements #62
                              Open
                              Open
                              [Feature Request] SmartContract Usability Improvements#62
                              Description
                              @navis83
                              navis83
                              opened on Sep 9, 2020
                              Hello, in last week I tried to create, deploy and use my own SmartContract that in few words provides both methods changing the internal contract variable status and others that won't change them.
                              
Here I report my analysis and possible suggestions to improve SmartContract definition and usability
                              • SmartContract SDK: there is not any SDK allowing to define a smart contract with latest available sc-api-support which I had to extract from contract-executor.jar to make tests on implemented functionalities --> It would be better to have an example project including different SmartContract templates (Token Template, Elaboration Template, etc) which user can easily clone and use in its workspace before to deploy on BlockChain
                              • SmartContract Search Engine: there is not any service allowing to search for available SmartContracts, making the first creation more difficult as the online documentation is not always aligned to latest available sources --> it might be useful to create a service to search deployed smartcontracts based on their main description/name or method description/name avoiding to create new SCs if there is one already created for something
                              • SmartContract Update: there is no way to update/change/fix/delete/invalidate a smartcontract, so once performed the deployment of a wrong Smartcontract, it cannot be removed anymore from blockchain, allowing anyone to loose money using that. More, if there is a little bug (because I remember there is not SDK to test it exhaustively before MainNet) the owner cannot fix it. --> it might be have sense to consider a possible way to update smartcontracts, for example adding a status on it which owner can change in order to make it ONLINE, OFFLINE, INVALIDATED, causing respectively the usability, not usability or dis-mission of specific SC. About SC update, it might be considered an INVALIDATION of previously defined SC, new deployment of new one and redirect from INVALIDATED to new ONLINE one which has also its own Address.
                              • Java Based SmartContract, Inheritance and Overloading: currently, the only way to reuse a smartcontract is to directly request it from new smartcontract, causing double fees payment because of double smart contract execution --> I think that if "SmartContract Search Engine" is available, it would be easy to identify available SmartContract source to be extended and overloaded in some cases, as the contracts are available in the blockchain and can be identified as in java by package.Name, not necessarily with address. So my suggestion is to consider the inheritance and overloading for smart contracts, reducing their number and making them more used
                              • SmartContract execution, status change and related fees:
                                
-- whenever a SC method is requested, the SC is executed on blockchain causing a consensus amount trusted nodes for its execution. I assume that such consensus is required if there is a smartcontract status change, but if there is not, why execute a consensus? --> I think that if the requested operation is an operation not changing the status, the consensus is not required as nothing is written on blockchain.
                                
-- From development point of view, there is a limitation about "failed status change operations": currently, the client using the smartcontract can provide the "notSaveNewState" parameter in order to inform the executor that the status has to be saved or not, but what happen if during the operation execution there is an error? The status is saved however without real change of Smartcontract status, charging the client about the status change fees.--> I think it would be better to introduce in smart contract operation like commit() / rallback() to be used in code when execution is finished in order to properly save the status of SmartContract on blockchain or rallback to previous status in case of failure, avoiding unuseful Blockchain change and extra client fees.
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                No labels
                                No labels
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions