Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Move upgradeToAndCallUUPS to UUPSUpgradeable #4356

Merged
merged 14 commits into from Jun 17, 2023

Conversation

Amxx
Copy link
Collaborator

@Amxx Amxx commented Jun 15, 2023

Fixes #4325 (comment)

PR Checklist

  • Tests
  • Documentation
  • Changeset entry (run npx changeset add)

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Jun 15, 2023

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: a54b74f

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
openzeppelin-solidity Major

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

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

@Amxx Amxx force-pushed the refactor/upgradeToAndCallUUPS branch from 3b20f54 to c3aec1c Compare June 15, 2023 20:07
ernestognw
ernestognw previously approved these changes Jun 16, 2023
test/proxy/utils/UUPSUpgradeable.test.js Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/proxy/ERC1967/ERC1967Utils.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Amxx Amxx requested review from frangio and ernestognw June 16, 2023 19:25
ernestognw
ernestognw previously approved these changes Jun 16, 2023
Copy link
Member

@ernestognw ernestognw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just added tests to increase the coverage and pass the Codecov check. LGTM

contracts/proxy/utils/UUPSUpgradeable.sol Show resolved Hide resolved
ernestognw
ernestognw previously approved these changes Jun 16, 2023
test/proxy/utils/UUPSUpgradeable.test.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/proxy/utils/UUPSUpgradeable.test.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@frangio
Copy link
Contributor

frangio commented Jun 17, 2023

We really need to agree on the guidelines for test descriptions. @Amxx and @ernestognw seem to disagree on how they should be written, based on the commit history here, and past conversations.

@frangio frangio merged commit 1a77a50 into OpenZeppelin:master Jun 17, 2023
14 checks passed
@ernestognw
Copy link
Member

We really need to agree on the guidelines for test descriptions. @Amxx and @ernestognw seem to disagree on how they should be written, based on the commit history here, and past conversations.

I prefer it("does something for semantics but I'm not opposed to test("something. I just prefer the test to be read as a spec with a list of it units because it refers to the subject in a corresponding block.

Contract: MerkleProof
    verify
      ✔ returns true for a valid Merkle proof (52ms)
      ✔ returns false for an invalid Merkle proof
      ✔ returns false for a Merkle proof of invalid length

Using it('...') as part of the description makes sense to me because of this

@Amxx Amxx deleted the refactor/upgradeToAndCallUUPS branch June 20, 2023 08:02
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.

None yet

3 participants