DecentralizedClimateFoundation
/
DCIPs
3
0
Fork 2
Code Issues 3 Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
DCIPs/EIPS/eip-5269.md

277 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

Adding EIPs website fork with some Gem Updates
2023-04-05 16:02:54 +00:00
---
eip: 5269
title: EIP/ERC Detection and Discovery
description: An interface to identify if major behavior or optional behavior specified in an ERC is supported for a given caller.
author: Zainan Victor Zhou (@xinbenlv)
discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc5269-human-readable-interface-detection/9957
status: Review
type: Standards Track
category: ERC
created: 2022-07-15
requires: 5750
---
## Abstract
An interface for better identification and detection of EIP/ERC by numbers.
It designates a field in which it's called `majorEIPIdentifier` which is normally known or referred to as "EIP number". For example, `ERC-721` aka [EIP-721](./eip-721.md) has a `majorEIPIdentifier = 721`. This EIP has a `majorEIPIdentifier = 5269`.
Calling it a `majorEIPIdentifier` instead of `EIPNumber` makes it future-proof: anticipating there is a possibility where future EIP is not numbered or if we want to incorporate other types of standards.
It also proposes a new concept of `minorEIPIdentifier` which is left for authors of
individual EIP to define. For example, EIP-721's author may define `ERC721Metadata`
interface as `minorEIPIdentifier= keccak256("ERC721Metadata")`.
It also proposes an event to allow smart contracts to optionally declare the EIPs they support.
## Motivation
This EIP is created as a competing standard for [EIP-165](./eip-165.md).
Here are the major differences between this EIP and [EIP-165](./eip-165.md).
1. [EIP-165](./eip-165.md) uses the hash of a method's signature which declares the existence of one method or multiple methods,
therefore it requires at least one method to *exist* in the first place. In some cases, some EIP/ERCs interface does not have a method, such as some EIPs related to data format and signature schemes or the "Soul-Bound-ness" aka SBT which could just revert a transfer call without needing any specific method.
1. [EIP-165](./eip-165.md) doesn't provide query ability based on the caller.
The compliant contract of this EIP will respond to whether it supports certain EIP *based on* a given caller.
Here is the motivation for this EIP given EIP-165 already exists:
1. Using EIP/ERC numbers improves human readability as well as make it easier to work with named contract such as ENS.
2. Instead of using an EIP-165 identifier, we have seen an increasing interest to use EIP/ERC numbers as the way to identify or specify an EIP/ERC. For example
- [EIP-5267](./eip-5267.md) specifies `extensions` to be a list of EIP numbers.
- [EIP-600](./eip-600.md), and [EIP-601](./eip-601.md) specify an `EIP` number in the `m / purpose' / subpurpose' / EIP' / wallet'` path.
- [EIP-5568](./eip-5568.md) specifies `The instruction_id of an instruction defined by an EIP MUST be its EIP number unless there are exceptional circumstances (be reasonable)`
- [EIP-6120](./eip-6120.md) specifies `struct Token { uint eip; ..., }` where `uint eip` is an EIP number to identify EIPs.
- `EIP-867`(Stagnant) proposes to create `erpId: A string identifier for this ERP (likely the associated EIP number, e.g. “EIP-1234”).`
3. Having an ERC/EIP number detection interface reduces the need for a lookup table in smart contract to
convert a function method or whole interface in any EIP/ERC in the bytes4 EIP-165 identifier into its respective EIP number and massively simplifies the way to specify EIP for behavior expansion.
4. We also recognize a smart contract might have different behavior given different caller accounts. One of the most notable use cases is that when using Transparent Upgradable Pattern, a proxy contract gives an Admin account and Non-Admin account different treatment when they call.
## Specification
In the following description, we use EIP and ERC inter-exchangeably. This was because while most of the time the description applies to an ERC category of the Standards Track of EIP, the ERC number space is a subspace of EIP number space and we might sometimes encounter EIPs that aren't recognized as ERCs but has behavior that's worthy of a query.
1. Any compliant smart contract MUST implement the following interface
```solidity
// DRAFTv1
pragma solidity ^0.8.9;
interface IERC5269 {
event OnSupportEIP(
address indexed caller, // when emitted with `address(0x0)` means all callers.
uint256 indexed majorEIPIdentifier,
bytes32 indexed minorEIPIdentifier, // 0 means the entire EIP
bytes32 eipStatus,
bytes extraData
);
/// @dev The core method of EIP/ERC Interface Detection
/// @param caller, a `address` value of the address of a caller being queried whether the given EIP is supported.
/// @param majorEIPIdentifier, a `uint256` value and SHOULD BE the EIP number being queried. Unless superseded by future EIP, such EIP number SHOULD BE less or equal to (0, 2^32-1]. For a function call to `supportEIP`, any value outside of this range is deemed unspecified and open to implementation's choice or for future EIPs to specify.
/// @param minorEIPIdentifier, a `bytes32` value reserved for authors of individual EIP to specify. For example the author of [EIP-721](/EIPS/eip-721) MAY specify `keccak256("ERC721Metadata")` or `keccak256("ERC721Metadata.tokenURI")` as `minorEIPIdentifier` to be quired for support. Author could also use this minorEIPIdentifier to specify different versions, such as EIP-712 has its V1-V4 with different behavior.
/// @param extraData, a `bytes` for [EIP-5750](/EIPS/eip-5750) for future extensions.
/// @return eipStatus, a `bytes32` indicating the status of EIP the contract supports.
/// - For FINAL EIPs, it MUST return `keccak256("FINAL")`.
/// - For non-FINAL EIPs, it SHOULD return `keccak256("DRAFT")`.
/// During EIP procedure, EIP authors are allowed to specify their own
/// eipStatus other than `FINAL` or `DRAFT` at their discretion such as `keccak256("DRAFTv1")`
/// or `keccak256("DRAFT-option1")`and such value of eipStatus MUST be documented in the EIP body
function supportEIP(
address caller,
uint256 majorEIPIdentifier,
bytes32 minorEIPIdentifier,
bytes calldata extraData)
external view returns (bytes32 eipStatus);
}
```
In the following description, `EIP_5269_STATUS` is set to be `keccak256("DRAFTv1")`.
In addition to the behavior specified in the comments of `IERC5269`:
1. Any `minorEIPIdentifier=0` is reserved to be referring to the main behavior of the EIP being queried.
2. The Author of compliant EIP is RECOMMENDED to declare a list of `minorEIPIdentifier` for their optional interfaces, behaviors and value range for future extension.
3. When this EIP is FINAL, any compliant contract MUST return an `EIP_5269_STATUS` for the call of `supportEIP((any caller), 5269, 0, [])`
*Note*: at the current snapshot, the `supportEIP((any caller), 5269, 0, [])` MUST return `EIP_5269_STATUS`.
4. Any complying contract SHOULD emit an `OnSupportEIP(address(0), 5269, 0, EIP_5269_STATUS, [])` event upon construction or upgrade.
5. Any complying contract MAY declare for easy discovery any EIP main behavior or sub-behaviors by emitting an event of `OnSupportEIP` with relevant values and when the compliant contract changes whether the support an EIP or certain behavior for a certain caller or all callers.
6. For any `EIP-XXX` that is NOT in `Final` status, when querying the `supportEIP((any caller), xxx, (any minor identifier), [])`, it MUST NOT return `keccak256("FINAL")`. It is RECOMMENDED to return `0` in this case but other values of `eipStatus` is allowed. Caller MUST treat any returned value other than `keccak256("FINAL")` as non-final, and MUST treat 0 as strictly "not supported".
7. The function `supportEIP` MUST be mutability `view`, i.e. it MUST NOT mutate any global state of EVM.
## Rationale
1. When data type `uint256 majorEIPIdentifier`, there are other alternative options such as:
- (1) using a hashed version of the EIP number,
- (2) use a raw number, or
- (3) use an EIP-165 identifier.
The pros for (1) are that it automatically supports any evolvement of future EIP numbering/naming conventions.
But the cons are it's not backward readable: seeing a `hash(EIP-number)` one usually can't easily guess what their EIP number is.
We choose the (2) in the rationale laid out in motivation.
2. We have a `bytes32 minorEIPIdentifier` in our design decision. Alternatively, it could be (1) a number, forcing all EIP authors to define its numbering for sub-behaviors so we go with a `bytes32` and ask the EIP authors to use a hash for a string name for their sub-behaviors which they are already doing by coming up with interface name or method name in their specification.
3. Alternatively, it's possible we add extra data as a return value or an array of all EIP being supported but we are unsure how much value this complexity brings and whether the extra overhead is justified.
4. Compared to [EIP-165](./eip-165.md), we also add an additional input of `address caller`, given the increasing popularity of proxy patterns such as those enabled by [EIP-1967](./eip-1967.md). One may ask: why not simply use `msg.sender`? This is because we want to allow query them without transaction or a proxy contract to query whether interface ERC-`number` will be available to that particular sender.
1. We reserve the input `majorEIPIdentifier` greater than or equals `2^32` in case we need to support other collections of standards which is not an ERC/EIP.
## Test Cases
```typescript
describe("ERC5269", function () {
async function deployFixture() {
// ...
}
describe("Deployment", function () {
// ...
it("Should emit proper OnSupportEIP events", async function () {
let { txDeployErc721 } = await loadFixture(deployFixture);
let events = txDeployErc721.events?.filter(event => event.event === 'OnSupportEIP');
expect(events).to.have.lengthOf(4);
let ev5269 = events!.filter(
(event) => event.args!.majorEIPIdentifier.eq(5269));
expect(ev5269).to.have.lengthOf(1);
expect(ev5269[0].args!.caller).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
expect(ev5269[0].args!.minorEIPIdentifier).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
expect(ev5269[0].args!.eipStatus).to.equal(ethers.utils.id("DRAFTv1"));
let ev721 = events!.filter(
(event) => event.args!.majorEIPIdentifier.eq(721));
expect(ev721).to.have.lengthOf(3);
expect(ev721[0].args!.caller).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
expect(ev721[0].args!.minorEIPIdentifier).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
expect(ev721[0].args!.eipStatus).to.equal(ethers.utils.id("FINAL"));
expect(ev721[1].args!.caller).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
expect(ev721[1].args!.minorEIPIdentifier).to.equal(ethers.utils.id("ERC721Metadata"));
expect(ev721[1].args!.eipStatus).to.equal(ethers.utils.id("FINAL"));
// ...
});
it("Should return proper eipStatus value when called supportEIP() for declared supported EIP/features", async function () {
let { erc721ForTesting, owner } = await loadFixture(deployFixture);
expect(await erc721ForTesting.supportEIP(owner.address, 5269, ethers.utils.hexZeroPad("0x00", 32), [])).to.equal(ethers.utils.id("DRAFTv1"));
expect(await erc721ForTesting.supportEIP(owner.address, 721, ethers.utils.hexZeroPad("0x00", 32), [])).to.equal(ethers.utils.id("FINAL"));
expect(await erc721ForTesting.supportEIP(owner.address, 721, ethers.utils.id("ERC721Metadata"), [])).to.equal(ethers.utils.id("FINAL"));
// ...
expect(await erc721ForTesting.supportEIP(owner.address, 721, ethers.utils.id("WRONG FEATURE"), [])).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
expect(await erc721ForTesting.supportEIP(owner.address, 9999, ethers.utils.hexZeroPad("0x00", 32), [])).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
});
it("Should return zero as eipStatus value when called supportEIP() for non declared EIP/features", async function () {
let { erc721ForTesting, owner } = await loadFixture(deployFixture);
expect(await erc721ForTesting.supportEIP(owner.address, 721, ethers.utils.id("WRONG FEATURE"), [])).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
expect(await erc721ForTesting.supportEIP(owner.address, 9999, ethers.utils.hexZeroPad("0x00", 32), [])).to.equal(BigNumber.from(0));
});
});
});
```
See [`TestERC5269.ts`](../assets/eip-5269/test/TestERC5269.ts).
## Reference Implementation
Here is a reference implementation for this EIP:
```solidity
contract ERC5269 is IERC5269 {
bytes32 constant public EIP_STATUS = keccak256("DRAFTv1");
constructor () {
emit OnSupportEIP(address(0x0), 5269, bytes32(0), EIP_STATUS, "");
}
function _supportEIP(
address /*caller*/,
uint256 majorEIPIdentifier,
bytes32 minorEIPIdentifier,
bytes calldata /*extraData*/)
internal virtual view returns (bytes32 eipStatus) {
if (majorEIPIdentifier == 5269) {
if (minorEIPIdentifier == bytes32(0)) {
return EIP_STATUS;
}
}
return bytes32(0);
}
function supportEIP(
address caller,
uint256 majorEIPIdentifier,
bytes32 minorEIPIdentifier,
bytes calldata extraData)
external virtual view returns (bytes32 eipStatus) {
return _supportEIP(caller, majorEIPIdentifier, minorEIPIdentifier, extraData);
}
}
```
See [`ERC5269.sol`](../assets/eip-5269/contracts/ERC5269.sol).
Here is an example where a contract of [EIP-721](./eip-721.md) also implement this EIP to make it easier
to detect and discover:
```solidity
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC721/ERC721.sol";
import "../ERC5269.sol";
contract ERC721ForTesting is ERC721, ERC5269 {
bytes32 constant public EIP_FINAL = keccak256("FINAL");
constructor() ERC721("ERC721ForTesting", "E721FT") ERC5269() {
_mint(msg.sender, 0);
emit OnSupportEIP(address(0x0), 721, bytes32(0), EIP_FINAL, "");
emit OnSupportEIP(address(0x0), 721, keccak256("ERC721Metadata"), EIP_FINAL, "");
emit OnSupportEIP(address(0x0), 721, keccak256("ERC721Enumerable"), EIP_FINAL, "");
}
function supportEIP(
address caller,
uint256 majorEIPIdentifier,
bytes32 minorEIPIdentifier,
bytes calldata extraData)
external
override
view
returns (bytes32 eipStatus) {
if (majorEIPIdentifier == 721) {
if (minorEIPIdentifier == 0) {
return keccak256("FINAL");
} else if (minorEIPIdentifier == keccak256("ERC721Metadata")) {
return keccak256("FINAL");
} else if (minorEIPIdentifier == keccak256("ERC721Enumerable")) {
return keccak256("FINAL");
}
}
return super._supportEIP(caller, majorEIPIdentifier, minorEIPIdentifier, extraData);
}
}
```
See [`ERC721ForTesting.sol`](../assets/eip-5269/contracts/testing/ERC721ForTesting.sol).
## Security Considerations
Similar to [EIP-165](./eip-165.md) callers of the interface MUST assume the smart contract
declaring they support such EIP interfaces doesn't necessarily correctly support them.
## Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md).