-
Couldn't load subscription status.
- Fork 75
feat: deploy scroll, blast, mode, redstone, zora, ink, and soneium spoke pools #1081
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
3c02f42 to
56637f5
Compare
d19e0d1 to
af5979f
Compare
9ff6088 to
676fbb3
Compare
| } | ||
|
|
||
| content.push(""); | ||
| // content.push(""); |
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.
Left over comment
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.
|
Do we want to put these new addresses into Otherwise when bumping the contracts version in the |
676fbb3 to
4ed7873
Compare
|
@grasphoper I was hoping to make the new also its automatically kept up to date by with |
681c342 to
a460888
Compare
These are only implementation contracts so we don't actually want them in deployments.json - if we updated them there then it'd break the bots. |
35007a7 to
4e83ba9
Compare
broadcast/deployed-addresses.json
Outdated
| }, | ||
| "Lens_SpokePool": { | ||
| "address": "0xc7772ce23a3ed7f87fe51b87617c7c7d21f15d39", | ||
| "transaction_hash": "0xa4938f34425c997b4686b5bad4f66b04bfbc2270dfe9c00b8f134da6a7b6edf5", | ||
| "block_number": 4092265 | ||
| } |
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.
Do we want to include this deployment?
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.
done 9fe5920
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
This reverts commit 8ccecb1. Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: bennett <bennett@umaproject.org>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
4e83ba9 to
42a4066
Compare
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
94cfe45 to
9fe5920
Compare
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <faisal.of.usmani@gmail.com>
| "lib/forge-std": { | ||
| "rev": "6bce1540c7a5d1c40eec032a1ae16f0e01f82b92" | ||
| } | ||
| } No newline at end of file |
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.
@fusmanii could you explain why we need this?
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.
this is just pinning lib/forge-std version, not sure why it hasn't been added to the repo already
| echo "✅ Code match" | ||
| else | ||
| echo "❌ Code mismatch" | ||
| fi |
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.
@fusmanii For the future, we should probably standardize the way we do this "veryfying of bytecode" action.
We've got this script, and 2 more: tasks/verifyBytecode.ts , tasks/verifySpokePool.ts
The latter script seems unused currently (am I wrong here @pxrl?) I like the idea of it: sanity checking some params for the spoke. It'd be nice to keep that up-to-date and potentially also create a foundry version.
It'd be nice if we consolidated all this functionality into some single foundry script that could work for any deployment: either foundry or hardhat.
These are a little vague thoughts and only tangentially relevant
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.
I added this as a quick way to check bytecode of a deployed contract using foundry but I agree, ideally there would be one script that can verify bytecode/params of a spoke pool regardless if it was deployed using foundry or hardhat
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.
The latter script seems unused currently (am I wrong here @pxrl?) I like the idea of it: sanity checking some params for the spoke. It'd be nice to keep that up-to-date and potentially also create a foundry version.
Yeah; it's only sporadically used, but it's a fairly inexpensive way of checking for any configuration issues in the SpokePool. There's value in checking that the onchain values match what was (intended to be) configured by the deployment script, but there's secondary value in dumping the values so that people can sanity check the results for anything that might be misconfigured in the deployment script. The visual inspection might catch issues that we are prone to overlook if the error is buried in a config file.
Ideally it could use executed post-deployment and the output could form part of the eventual PR to add the SpokePool artefacts.
No description provided.