});
const promise = promiseFn.apply(null, args);
try {
await promise;
} catch (e) {

PLEASE help me am new to rust

I'm trying to follow the minting tutorial from https://docs.near.org/tutorials/nfts/minting. I followed the guide exactly the same. However, after making all the mentioned changes when I run yarn build I get following errors.

there's no info on how to run tests

tried to install inside the integration-tests folder, some special version?

Hi NEAR developers,

I am traversing your guides and I am quite impressed with the work you done.

I have a question regrading contracts. I started using my actual near account xxxx.near and not xxxx.testnet anymore.
Will I be able to make near calls with deployed contract from

git clone https://github.com/near-examples/nft-tutorial.git 
cd nft-tutorial
git switch 6.royalty
yarn build

then I call
near deploy --accountId $NFT_CONTRACT_ID --wasmFile out/main.wasm
to deploy contract

then I call

near call $NFT_CONTRACT_ID new_default_meta '{"owner_id": "'$NFT_CONTRACT_ID'"}' --accountId $NFT_CONTRACT_ID

to init contract.

Will I be able to then call a function

near view $MARKETPLACE_CONTRACT_ID get_supply_sales

with contract that I previously deployed?

I do not want to spend to much NEAR on deploying and initializing contracts that does not do its job. I need to pay I think 3 NEAR (2937818518636002900000000 yocto) to deploy.

Thank you for your answers and help

On the ReadMe for this repository, the Tutorial Stages table that explains the step-by-step way to learn how to make a near contract all return "page not found".

The current versioning of NFT events is prefixed by nft-:

• https://github.com/near-examples/nft-tutorial/blob/main/nft-contract/src/mint.rs#L60
• https://github.com/near-examples/nft-tutorial/blob/main/nft-contract/src/lib.rs#L28

The event standards according to the nomicon don't have this prefix and most of the ecosystem doesn't have that prefix, and it's causing NFTs with that prefix to be ignored by indexers.

Currently there is no testing flow for reselling an NFT with royalties. When implementing this with near-workspaces-ava, the asserts fail when running the following simulation test:

workspace.test(
  "cross contract: reselling and royalties",
  async (test, { nft_contract, market_contract, alice, bob, charlie }) => {
    const royalties_string = `{"${alice.accountId}":2000}`;
    const royalties = JSON.parse(royalties_string);
    test.log("royalties: ", royalties);
    await mintNFT(alice, nft_contract, royalties);
    await payForStorage(alice, market_contract);
    const ask_price = "300000000000000000000000";
    await placeNFTForSale(market_contract, alice, nft_contract, ask_price);

    // offer for higher price
    const alice_balance_before_offer = (await alice.balance()).total.toBigInt();
    const bid_price = ask_price + "0";
    await purchaseListedNFT(nft_contract, bob, market_contract, bid_price);
    const alice_balance_after_offer = (await alice.balance()).total.toBigInt();
    const alice_balance_difference = (
      alice_balance_after_offer - alice_balance_before_offer
    ).toString();

    // assert alice gets paid
    test.is(
      alice_balance_difference.substring(0, 3),
      bid_price.substring(0, 3),
      "Expected alice balance to roughly increase by sale price"
    );

    // bob relists NFT for higher price
    test.log("bob paying for storage");
    await payForStorage(bob, market_contract);
    const resell_ask_price = bid_price + "0";
    test.log("bob placing NFT for sale");
    await placeNFTForSale(market_contract, bob, nft_contract, resell_ask_price);
  
    // bob updates price to lower ask
    test.log("bob updating NFT price for lower");
    const lowered_resell_ask_price = "600000000000000000000000";
    const update_price_payload = {
      nft_contract_id: nft_contract,
      token_id: "TEST123",
      price: lowered_resell_ask_price,
    };
    await bob.call(
      market_contract,
      "update_price",
      update_price_payload,
      defaultCallOptions(DEFAULT_GAS, "1")
    );

    // charlie buys NFT from bob
    test.log("charlie purchasing bobs NFT");
    const alice_balance_before_offer_2 = (
      await alice.balance()
    ).total.toBigInt();
    const bob_balance_before_offer = (await bob.balance()).total.toBigInt();
    test.log("bob_balance_before_offer", bob_balance_before_offer);
    await purchaseListedNFT(
      nft_contract,
      charlie,
      market_contract,
      resell_ask_price
    );
    const alice_balance_after_offer_2 = (
      await alice.balance()
    ).total.toBigInt();
    const alice_balance_difference_2 = (
      alice_balance_after_offer_2 - alice_balance_before_offer_2
    ).toString();
    const bob_balance_after_offer = (await bob.balance()).total.toBigInt();
    test.log("bob_balance_after_offer", bob_balance_after_offer);
    const bob_balance_difference = (
      bob_balance_after_offer - bob_balance_before_offer
    ).toString();

    // assert alice gets paid royalties
    // TODO: this fails on sandbox and should pass 
    test.is(
      alice_balance_difference_2.substring(0, 2),
      "120", // 20% of lowered_resell_ask_price
      "Expected bob balance to roughly increase by 80% of sale price"
    );
    // assert bob gets paid
    test.is(
      bob_balance_difference.substring(0, 2),
      "480", // 80% of lowered_resell_ask_price
      "Expected bob balance to roughly increase by 80% of sale price"
    );
  }
);

The Developer Console tutorial mentions

Return types have been removed from this code example so the contract can still compile properly.

With regards to https://github.com/near-examples/nft-tutorial/ . It is however unnecessary to remove return types to make the code compile todo!() macro can be used in places of missing code since it coerces to any type.

CC @BenKurrek

This place

Note, how for similar example in ft_on_receive there is no verification of the account id is signer.

Hi,

I am following https://docs.near.org/docs/tutorials/contracts/nfts/marketplace tutorial and I would like to call function near view $MARKETPLACE_CONTRACT_ID get_supply_by_owner_id '{"account_id": "benji.testnet"}' to list all supply that account_id: "benji.testnet" owns. But I am getting the following error Unknown argument: benji.testnet}'

Is this the right function call with its parameters, and should I get in return some sort of list with information?

What am I doing wrong?

With kind regards
Jernej

Unclear why the toolchain is statically set, but it'll cause issues for those who have not installed the wasm32-unknown-unknown target for 1.61 specifically.

Workaround is running:

rustup target add wasm32-unknown-unknown

in the project, but I can't think of any reason not to remove https://github.com/near-examples/nft-tutorial/blob/2f8f9721312d8daaa725f901adb132f1608ab81e/rust-toolchain

Hi, some new projects are using this example and we have found some parameters are mandatory (which shouldn't from the standard).

The first one is nft_transfer_payout, which requires a mandatory memo, which is not part of the standard [1]. This is also reflected in the tutorial [2].

https://github.com/near-examples/nft-tutorial/blob/main/nft-contract/src/royalty.rs#L69

 fn nft_transfer_payout(
        &mut self,
        receiver_id: AccountId,
        token_id: TokenId,
        approval_id: u64,
        memo: String,
        balance: U128,
        max_len_payout: u32,
 )

The second one is nft_transfer with mandatory approval_id, which should be optional from the standard [3].

https://github.com/near-examples/nft-tutorial/blob/main/nft-contract/src/nft_core.rs#L100

    fn nft_transfer(
       &mut self,
       receiver_id: AccountId,
       token_id: TokenId,
       //we introduce an approval ID so that people with that approval ID can transfer the token
       approval_id: u64,
       memo: Option<String>,
   ) {

[1] https://nomicon.io/Standards/NonFungibleToken/Payout
[2] https://docs.near.org/docs/tutorials/contracts/nfts/royalty
[3] https://nomicon.io/Standards/NonFungibleToken/Core

Edit: made a PR #21