Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Precise event naming convention #14

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 24, 2024
Merged

Precise event naming convention #14

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c983f80
precise event naming convention
xenoliss Apr 15, 2024
9735033
make event format clearer
xenoliss Apr 19, 2024
f1a60db
split events section
xenoliss Apr 24, 2024
e739173
fix syntax
xenoliss Apr 24, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -57,9 +57,9 @@ For example, `InsufficientBalance`.

#### 3. Event names should be past tense.

For example, `UpdatedOwner` not `UpdateOwner`.
For example, `OwnerUpdated` not `UpdateOwner`.

Events should track things that _happened_ and so should be past tense. Using past tense also helps avoid naming collisions with structs or functions.
Events should track things that _happened_ and so should be past tense. Using past tense also helps avoid naming collisions with structs or functions. We also recommend following the `SubjectVerb`(e.g. `OwnerUpdated`) format rather than `VerbSubject` (e.g. `UpdatedOwner`).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry @xenoliss one more comment here. I think We also recommend... could be its own rule? Not sure we need to bundle with past tense


We are aware this does not follow precedent from early ERCs, like [ERC-20](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-20). However it does align with some more recent high profile Solidity, e.g. [1](https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/976a3d53624849ecaef1231019d2052a16a39ce4/contracts/access/Ownable.sol#L33), [2](https://github.com/aave/aave-v3-core/blob/724a9ef43adf139437ba87dcbab63462394d4601/contracts/interfaces/IAaveOracle.sol#L25-L31), [3](https://github.com/ProjectOpenSea/seaport/blob/1d12e33b71b6988cbbe955373ddbc40a87bd5b16/contracts/zones/interfaces/PausableZoneEventsAndErrors.sol#L25-L41).

Expand Down
Loading