-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Generalise BBFarm + Light refactor #7
Merged
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
Member
XertroV
commented
May 31, 2018
- generalise BBFarm so we can have more than one
- give them a namespace
- use 1st byte of extradata to indicate which BBFarm to use
- add Iface for bbfarm
- add BBFarmAux contract (using ABIEncoderV2 - shiny)
- remove lots of getters from Index (they can be called directly)
- remove some fwd functions from index
- add IxLib so contracts have an easy way to access getters that have been removed
- add submitProxyVote method to BBFarm to allow submitting someone elses vote (using ecrecover)
- Maybe more?
Bonus: extraData now has a use!
- also, ix not building due to mismatch w interface
- Reduce Ix size by moving getter functions out of Ix and into IxLib - move arbitraryData to Backend NOTE: Started using `pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2`. The reason for this is returning bytes data en masse via BBFarm. Some thoughts: - We don't use any experimental features when doing anything where security is required (it's just for dumping votes out) - Experimental features aren't good to use in production, but is there any risk using them just for retriving data? - Maybe better to move these functions to a new contract so it's isolated as much as possible
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 162
💛 - Coveralls |
- also tried changing votes from mapping to array... but gas cost went up by about 700 for all but the test using 64b of `extra`
- also remove IxLib from coverage
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.