Distinguish OpenZeppelin Relayer from the managed Stellar Channels service - #2723
Distinguish OpenZeppelin Relayer from the managed Stellar Channels service#2723ElliotFriend wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
…rvice The Tools index and the OpenZeppelin Relayer page both described the Relayer as "also known as Stellar Channels Service" and as managed infrastructure. That presents two things as one product when their operational contracts differ: the Relayer is an open source (AGPL-3.0) framework you can run yourself, in which case you hold the signing keys and fund the accounts that pay fees, while Stellar Channels is the service OpenZeppelin operates on top of it, running the channel account pool and covering fees under a fair use policy. Rewrites both blurbs to separate the framework from the managed service, and adds a note that the examples on the Relayer page authenticate against the managed Channels endpoints rather than a self-hosted relayer. Closes #2707 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Clarifies the distinction between self-hosted OpenZeppelin Relayer and managed Stellar Channels.
Changes:
- Rewrites both tool descriptions.
- Documents custody, fee funding, and managed-service behavior.
- Notes that examples use Channels endpoints.
Recommendation: NEEDS-CHANGES — Remaining prose still calls Channels resources “Relayer” resources.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
docs/tools/README.mdx |
Distinguishes Relayer from Channels. |
docs/tools/openzeppelin-relayer.mdx |
Expands operational differences and example context. |
Review feedback: the two blurbs were fixed, but the rest of the page still called managed Channels resources "Relayer" resources. The status section pointed at status.channels.openzeppelin.com under an "OpenZeppelin Relayer Status" heading, both tutorials called the hosted endpoint the "Relayer service endpoint", and the Launchtube paragraph named the Relayer as the replacement service when the hosted replacement is Channels. Renames those prose references to Channels and reserves "Relayer" for the underlying framework, the plugin package, and the upstream repo link. Code blocks are untouched. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Good catch, addressed in 894ffb9. Renamed the managed-service references in prose to Channels: the status heading (it points at |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.
Suppressed comments (2)
docs/tools/openzeppelin-relayer.mdx:8
- The subject of “provides” is the Stellar Development Foundation, so this now says SDF provides Stellar Channels. That contradicts this page’s description and line 12, which correctly identify OpenZeppelin as the service operator. Attribute the managed service to OpenZeppelin explicitly.
Launchtube, which served as an experimental service for fee sponsorship and contract invocations, has been instrumental in early-stage deployments and developer experimentation. However, while functional for testing and early use cases, Launchtube does not have the maturity, scalability and auditing as OpenZeppelin’s Relayer, which is why the Stellar Development Foundation is discontinuing the Launchtube service and provides the managed Stellar Channels service as a replacement.
docs/tools/README.mdx:32
- This overview promises that OpenZeppelin covers fees without the fair-use qualification stated in the PR description and on the detailed page. Add that condition here so readers do not infer unconditional fee sponsorship.
OpenZeppelin Relayer is an open source framework for submitting Stellar transactions, with automatic parallel processing and fee management. You can run your own instance, or you can use [Stellar Channels](https://docs.openzeppelin.com/relayer/1.3.x/guides/stellar-channels-guide), the managed service OpenZeppelin operates on top of the Relayer, where OpenZeppelin runs the pool of channel accounts and covers the fees for you.
…he index Review feedback. The Launchtube sentence read as though SDF provides the managed service, since "the Stellar Development Foundation" governs both verbs; OpenZeppelin operates Channels. The Tools index also promised covered fees without the fair use qualification the detail page carries. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Both valid, fixed in 989b7c7. SDF was the subject of "provides", so it read as SDF operating Channels; now attributed to OpenZeppelin. Fair use caveat added to the index blurb. |
|
Preview is available here: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.
Suppressed comments (1)
docs/tools/openzeppelin-relayer.mdx:16
- The page now says these examples use Channels, but several copied snippets still label the managed request as “Relayer” (for example, “Build request for Relayer,” “Call Contract via Relayer,” and the Relayer-specific error text). Those labels preserve the ambiguity this PR is intended to remove. Update the remaining user-facing strings and comments to say “Channels” consistently; keep “Relayer” only where the text explicitly refers to the underlying framework.
The examples on this page use the managed Channels service, so they authenticate with a Channels API key rather than talking to a relayer you run yourself.
|
Preview is available here: |
1 similar comment
|
Preview is available here: |
Review feedback. The snippets still labelled the managed request as a Relayer
request ("Build request for Relayer", "Submit to Channels Relayer", the button
and result strings, and the error text), which kept the ambiguity alive inside
the code. Only the package name still says relayer, since that is its real name.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Fair, done in the latest commit. Renamed the comments, button and result strings, and the error text in the snippets; only |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.
Suppressed comments (1)
docs/tools/openzeppelin-relayer.mdx:8
- The comparative phrase “does not have the … as” is ungrammatical. Add “same” and clarify that auditing refers to its level so the updated distinction reads cleanly.
Launchtube, which served as an experimental service for fee sponsorship and contract invocations, has been instrumental in early-stage deployments and developer experimentation. However, while functional for testing and early use cases, Launchtube does not have the maturity, scalability and auditing as OpenZeppelin’s Relayer, which is why the Stellar Development Foundation is discontinuing the Launchtube service and points developers to OpenZeppelin's managed Stellar Channels service as the replacement.
"does not have the maturity, scalability and auditing as" was ungrammatical. Adds "same", makes auditing a level rather than a thing Launchtube lacks outright, restores the serial comma, and matches the curly apostrophe used elsewhere on the page. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Right, fixed. Now reads "does not have the same maturity, scalability, or level of auditing as OpenZeppelin's Relayer". Pre-existing wording, but the sentence is in my diff so it may as well be correct. |
|
Preview is available here: |
|
Preview is available here: |
Both Tools pages called the Relayer "also known as Stellar Channels Service". They are not the same thing: the Relayer is an open source (AGPL-3.0) framework you can run yourself, where you hold the signing keys and fund the fee accounts, while Channels is the service OpenZeppelin operates on top of it, running the channel account pool and covering fees under a fair use policy.
Rewrites both blurbs and the page description, and notes that the examples on the Relayer page authenticate against managed Channels endpoints.
Closes #2707
🤖 Generated with Claude Code