Add FortaBridged contract #11
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Amxx
reviewed
Oct 29, 2021
frangio
commented
Nov 18, 2021
frangio
commented
Nov 25, 2021
Co-authored-by: Francisco Giordano <frangio.1@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Francisco Giordano <frangio.1@gmail.com>
frangio
commented
Nov 25, 2021
| @@ -43,7 +47,7 @@ function prepare() { | |||
| this.token .connect(this.accounts.admin).grantRole(this.roles.WHITELISTER, this.accounts.whitelister.address), | |||
| this.otherToken.connect(this.accounts.admin).grantRole(this.roles.MINTER, this.accounts.minter.address ), | |||
| this.otherToken.connect(this.accounts.admin).grantRole(this.roles.WHITELISTER, this.accounts.whitelister.address), | |||
| ].map(txPromise => txPromise.then(tx => tx.wait()))); | |||
| ].map(txPromise => txPromise.then(tx => tx.wait()).catch(() => {}))); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is catch necessary?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a like that is expected to revert in some case: When simulating L2, there is no MINTER role setup on the Forta (which is a FortaBridged)
I thought this was the simplest way to discard this errors ... maybe not the safest but here we don't really care.
Co-authored-by: Francisco Giordano <frangio.1@gmail.com>
Non-upgradeable BaseComponent is now dead code
frangio
commented
Nov 26, 2021
| @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ describe('Dispatcher', function () { | |||
| expect(await this.dispatch.scannerHash(this.SCANNER_ID)).to.not.be.deep.equal(hashBefore); | |||
| }); | |||
|
|
|||
| it('gas estimation', async function () { | |||
| it.skip('gas estimation', async function () { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this be removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this test is slow to run, and not relevant to security. We realized that gas restrictions for rpc view function calls is not an issue
|
I think this is good to merge! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The FORT token needs to be bridged over to Polygon, where the system will operate and staking will happen.
We'll use the Polygon PoS Bridge. The token on Polygon will use the same code that was originally deployed to Ethereum Mainnet, extended with the functions required by the PoS Bridge (
depositandwithdraw), and with the ability to mint removed.The roles of the token will be initially assigned to a Gnosis Safe deployed to Polygon with the same set of signers.