Upgradeable contracts using proxies. #39
Conversation
| name = "implementation" | ||
|
|
||
| [proxy] | ||
| enabled = true # Undecided if we really need this flag yet. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think removing this makes sense, as absence or existence of [proxy] table can be used to deduce this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess setting this to false would allow you to deploy the contract for testing purposes before generating and committing to the proxy contract.
Users could always comment out [proxy] but this might make that more explicit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm you mean to test the implementation contract right? if so sounds good to me. Another option to infer the enabled = true if the table is there, and for testing users can use enabled = false or we can explicitly require the field to be there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fwiw I think having them comment it out for that behavior (or run a specific flag) looks more correct.
[rendered]