Skip to content

[eth] Some contract improvements #356

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

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 19, 2022

Conversation

ali-behjati
Copy link
Collaborator

@ali-behjati ali-behjati commented Oct 18, 2022

This PR:

  • Updates contract to use the latest solidity sdk and updates getUpdateFee method to get the data instead of size (+ addressing tests + relayer). Keeps the old one for backward compatibility.
  • Removes part of the code to transfer back extra paid fee amount (to be consistent with other chains that do not support it. e.g., aptos)

@ali-behjati ali-behjati changed the title [eth] Small contract improvements [eth] Some contract improvements Oct 18, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@jayantk jayantk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we can make breaking API changes anymore. We don't know for sure that nobody is using us, and we need to be careful.

I think a better solution here would be to mark the old method as deprecated and add a new method that took the full payload.

We could also promise that the old method returns an overestimate of the necessary fee, so everything will continue to work for any users of the old method.

@ali-behjati
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think this is an unrealistic assumption but I'm not 100% sure. I am sure that no one has communicated to us that they are even trying us out. Also, I can check that no transaction in mainnet has made to update the prices. Keeping it is an extra liability to make sure it's always over estimating.

However, I can get the point that we publicly announced our launch and we should stick to backward compatibility. There's no way to say which one outweighs another one. So as you both like to keep it backward compatible I added the old one too.

Copy link
Contributor

@njk-64 njk-64 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@ali-behjati ali-behjati merged commit bdc492f into main Oct 19, 2022
@ali-behjati ali-behjati deleted the abehjati/eth-contract-improvement-3 branch October 19, 2022 17:47
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.

4 participants