Skip to content

Conversation

@DeVikingMark
Copy link
Contributor

Replace incorrect reference to extending ERC-721 with proper guidance for using Base64 Data URIs in ERC-1155 contracts.

The documentation now correctly explains that developers can override the uri() function or use ERC1155URIStorage extension, matching the actual capabilities of the ERC-1155 standard.

@DeVikingMark DeVikingMark requested a review from a team as a code owner November 14, 2025 06:12
@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Nov 14, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 0b06b23

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 14, 2025

Walkthrough

The documentation page for ERC-1155 was updated to revise the TIP guidance on URI handling. The paragraph previously suggested extending ERC-721 with Base64-encoded JSON URIs or using IPFS. The updated guidance now provides ERC-1155-specific approaches, recommending overriding the uri() function in ERC-1155 or using ERC1155URIStorage to return Base64 Data URIs, with a note about cost implications. IPFS remains mentioned as an alternative approach.

Suggested labels

ignore-changeset, typo

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title accurately reflects the main change: correcting ERC-1155 documentation from incorrect ERC-721 guidance to proper ERC-1155 metadata approaches.
Description check ✅ Passed The description is directly related to the changeset, clearly explaining the correction made from ERC-721 to ERC-1155 guidance and the proper approaches now documented.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6308fdc and 0b06b23.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • docs/modules/ROOT/pages/erc1155.adoc (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (9)
  • GitHub Check: Redirect rules - solidity-contracts
  • GitHub Check: slither
  • GitHub Check: tests-foundry
  • GitHub Check: tests-upgradeable
  • GitHub Check: tests
  • GitHub Check: coverage
  • GitHub Check: Header rules - solidity-contracts
  • GitHub Check: halmos
  • GitHub Check: Pages changed - solidity-contracts
🔇 Additional comments (1)
docs/modules/ROOT/pages/erc1155.adoc (1)

97-97: Documentation guidance is correct and consistent with existing patterns.

The xref links in line 97 follow established documentation conventions:

  • The xref:api:token/ERC1155.adoc#ERC1155URIStorage reference points to the ERC1155URIStorage documentation, which is a valid component that exists in the codebase at contracts/token/ERC1155/extensions/ERC1155URIStorage.sol
  • The xref:utilities.adoc#base64 reference uses the same pattern as the existing ERC-721 documentation (see erc721.adoc), pointing to the Base64 section (line 427) in utilities.adoc with an auto-generated anchor
  • Both references align with the Antora documentation module system already in use throughout the codebase

The TIP guidance appropriately directs developers to two valid ERC-1155-specific approaches for on-chain metadata while acknowledging cost implications and IPFS alternatives.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

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.

1 participant