Bounty

Earn tokens for your contributions.

Earn Your Share of 1000 Sui

Gain Reputation Points & Get Rewards for Helping the Sui Community Grow.

Posts

Bounty+15
Xavier.eth301
Jun 17, 2025
Expert Q&A
How do ability constraints interact with dynamic fields in heterogeneous collections?
I'm building a marketplace that needs to handle multiple asset types with different ability requirements, and I've hit some fundamental questions about Move's type system. I want to store different asset types in the same collection, but they have different abilities: Regular NFTs: key + store (transferable) Soulbound tokens: key only (non-transferable) Custom assets with transfer restrictions public struct Marketplace has key { id: UID, listings: Bag, // Want to store different asset types here } // This works for transferable assets public fun list_transferable( marketplace: &mut Marketplace, asset: T, price: u64 ) { /* ... */ } // But how to handle soulbound assets? public fun list_soulbound( // No store ability marketplace: &mut Marketplace, asset_ref: &T, // Can only take reference price: u64 ) { /* How do I store metadata about this? */ } Key Questions: Ability Requirements: When using dynamic_field::add(), does V always need store at compile time? Can wrapper types work around this? Heterogeneous Storage: Can a single Bag store objects with different ability sets (key + store + copy vs key + store), and handle them differently at runtime? Type Safety: Since dynamic fields perform type erasure, how do I maintain type safety when retrieving values? What's the pattern for storing type metadata? Witness Pattern: How do ability constraints work with phantom types? Can I store Asset and Asset in the same collection and extract type info later? Building a system where NFTs, soulbound tokens, and restricted assets all need marketplace functionality but with different transfer semantics. I’ve tried wrapper types, multiple collections per ability set, separate type metadata storage. Each has tradeoffs between type safety, gas costs, and complexity.
- Sui
- Architecture
0
0
Bounty+10
Peera Admin37
May 29, 2025
Expert Q&A
Why does BCS require exact field order for deserialization when Move structs have named fields?
Why does BCS require exact field order for deserialization when Move structs have named fields? I've been diving deep into BCS encoding/decoding in Move, particularly for cross-chain communication and off-chain data processing. While working through the examples in the Sui Move documentation, I encountered some behavior that seems counterintuitive and I'm trying to understand the underlying design decisions. According to the BCS specification, "there are no structs in BCS (since there are no types); the struct simply defines the order in which fields are serialized." This means when deserializing, we must use peel_* functions in the exact same order as the struct field definition. My Specific Questions: Design Rationale: Why does BCS require exact field order matching when Move structs have named fields? Wouldn't it be more robust to serialize field names alongside values, similar to JSON or other self-describing formats? Generic Type Interaction: The docs mention that "types containing generic type fields can be parsed up to the first generic type field." Consider this structure: struct ComplexObject has drop, copy { id: ID, owner: address, metadata: Metadata, generic_data: T, more_metadata: String, another_generic: U } How exactly does partial deserialization work here? Can I deserialize up to more_metadata and ignore both generic fields, or does the first generic field (generic_data) completely block further deserialization? Cross-Language Consistency: When using the @mysten/bcs JavaScript library to serialize data that will be consumed by Move contracts, what happens if: I accidentally reorder fields in the JavaScript object? The Move struct definition changes field order in a contract upgrade? I have nested structs with their own generic parameters? Practical Implications: In production systems, how do teams handle BCS schema evolution? Do you version your BCS schemas, or is the expectation that struct field order is immutable once deployed?
- Sui
- Move
5
2
Best Answer
Bounty+10
Peera Admin36
Mar 05, 2025
Expert Q&A
Multiple Source Verification Errors" in Sui Move Module Publications - Automated Error Resolution
Developers working with Sui Move frequently encounter issues related to "Multiple source verification errors found" when attempting to publish or upgrade modules. These errors occur due to mismatches between local dependencies and their on-chain counterparts, leading to failed publications and deployment challenges. Below is a consolidated example of the errors developers face: Failed to publish the Move module(s), reason: [warning] Multiple source verification errors found: Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::vec_set Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::vec_map Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001::MoveStdlib::bit_vector Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001::MoveStdlib::ascii Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::hex Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::zklogin_verified_id Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::prover Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::coin Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::dynamic_field Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::transfer On-chain version of dependency Sui::zklogin_verified_id was not found. On-chain version of dependency Sui::zklogin_verified_issuer was not found. Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::tx_context Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::transfer_policy Local dependency did not match its on-chain version at 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002::Sui::kiosk This issue often arises due to: Mismatched versions between the local development environment (e.g., Sui CLI) and the on-chain state. Differences in package configurations across networks (e.g., Mainnet vs. Testnet). Missing or outdated dependencies in the on-chain environment. Key Questions How can we automate the detection and resolution of these dependency mismatches during the publication process? What tools or scripts can be developed to ensure that local dependencies always align with their on-chain counterparts? Is there a way to streamline this process by integrating dependency checks into existing CI/CD pipelines or enhancing the Sui SDK? Your task is to propose a solution that addresses these challenges, ensuring smoother and more reliable deployments for Sui Move developers. Make sure to post your solution below.
- Sui
- SDKs and Developer Tools
4
1
Best Answer