Skip to content

Conversation

@0xxlegolas
Copy link
Collaborator

@0xxlegolas 0xxlegolas commented Dec 10, 2025

  • Added tenant support to all on-chain objects
  • Enforced tenant isolation for item transfers
  • refactored string usage

@0xxlegolas 0xxlegolas requested a review from a team as a code owner December 10, 2025 10:09
@0xxlegolas 0xxlegolas marked this pull request as draft December 10, 2025 10:09
@0xxlegolas 0xxlegolas marked this pull request as ready for review December 10, 2025 15:17
Copy link
Contributor

@ccp-raudur ccp-raudur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@vayan vayan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Image

looks good! Glad that we're multi TEAnant now.

Image

@0xxlegolas 0xxlegolas changed the title feat!: add multi teanant support for all assemblies feat!: add multi tenant support for all assemblies Dec 10, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@ccp-bofai ccp-bofai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When I read the code I see "item_id" as "the id of an item", I see "character_id" as " the id of a character", I see "type_id" as the "id of a type". This establishes a pattern which is quite clear and understandable. "game_id" on the other hand is not "the id of a game". I am guessing it is "in_game_item_id".
I am also finding key: DerivationKey, not very obvious to read. I am guessing that it is a derived object id of an in game item id and tenant id. Wondering if it should be item_tid (and document that "tid" is "tenanted id") or "tenanted_item_id". I could quite easily see people reading "key", and then thinking of public/private key related things, perhaps even an address; but I don't see any suggestion of what is in it.

Base automatically changed from feat/character-hardening to main December 11, 2025 10:21
Copy link
Contributor

@ccp-bofai ccp-bofai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM thanks for the readability changes

@0xxlegolas 0xxlegolas merged commit 9c4ecf7 into main Dec 11, 2025
4 checks passed
@0xxlegolas 0xxlegolas deleted the feat/multi-tenant-for-assemblies branch December 11, 2025 10:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants