-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
wOETH history & more #42
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
Conversation
| ]) | ||
| erc20 = new ERC20({ | ||
| id: address, | ||
| id: `${ctx.chain.id}-${address}`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what do you think of adopting the same id format than in FE:
${symbol}${chainId === mainnet.id ? '' : `:${chainId}`}
Maybe wrap this in getTokenId/parseTokenId utils
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For using symbol, I'm unsure - address feels more official, yet we should only ever be officially recognizing specific symbols so it could be OK.
Regarding placement of the chainId, I would rather have it in front because it's the larger scale item.
Synchronizing these would be nice though I agree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah, I'm not against switching place for chain and address, this is how gnosis safe is doing as well... For the symbol vs address point, it's just to optimize readability, it's easier with the symbol obviously
- created schema-otoken.graphql to be the future home of a joined otoken schema across chains - txHash on `BridgeTransferState`
sharedintomainnet