Feat/qs integration#1635
Conversation
🟡 Heimdall Review Status
|
|
|
||
| B20 is an ERC-20 superset. Standard `transfer`, `transferFrom`, `approve`, `balanceOf`, and ERC-2612 `permit` all work, so an app that accepts ERC-20 tokens accepts B20 with no code changes. | ||
|
|
||
| B20's additions include transfer policies, pausing, supply caps, and memos. This guide uses the memo: `transferWithMemo` works like `transfer`, but also attaches a `bytes32` reference such as an order ID and emits a `Memo` event right after the standard `Transfer`. Read that event to tie each payment to an order. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"additions" -> "new features"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"emits a Memo event right after the standard Transfer event" (event is implied after transfer in the current version, better to be explicit though to avoid any confusion)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Read that event to tie each payment to an order"
- who or what is reading? this feels a bit like a hanging sentence
"Your app can read that event to tie each transfer transaction to an order"
|
|
||
| ## Tag a payment with a memo | ||
|
|
||
| This uses your configured viem `walletClient` and `publicClient`. It reads the token's decimals, sends a payment tagged with an order ID, then reads the memo back from the receipt: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"this"... this what? again state the thing to be more clear
"this example" or "this demo"
Should the first sentence state an implementation detail, or should we put the second sentence first which informs the reader of what is actually happening first and then provide the implementation detail?
|
|
||
| This uses your configured viem `walletClient` and `publicClient`. It reads the token's decimals, sends a payment tagged with an order ID, then reads the memo back from the receipt: | ||
|
|
||
| ```js theme={null} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we leveraging all of the features of mintlify code blocks in this example to make it as legible as possible?
5 participants
What changed? Why?
Notes to reviewers
How has it been tested?