You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
“This document provides a comprehensive overview of the actors involved in the smart contract system and outlines their respective privileges and roles. Different roles (we call them domains) are granted via the AddressManager contract’s setAddress() function. The idea is very similar to Optimism’s AddressManager, except that we use the chainId + domainName as the key for a given address. We need to do so because, for bridging purposes, the destination chain’s bridge address needs to be included to signal that the message hash is tamper-proof. Every contract which needs some role-based authentication needs to inherit from the AddressResolver contract. This will serve as a ‘middleman/lookup’ by querying the AddressManager to determine if a given address is allowed to act on behalf of that domain or not.”
Changes made:
“domain” to “domains”
“Idea is very similar Optimism’s AddressManager” to “The idea is very similar to Optimism’s AddressManager”
Added “to” in “we need to do so”
“signaling the message hash is tamper-proof” to “to signal that the message hash is tamper-proof” -- with this phrase I'm not quite sure what you wanted to say, but I tried my best to edit that.
Spam policy
I verify that this issue is NOT SPAM and understand SPAM issues will be closed and reported to GitHub, resulting in ACCOUNT TERMINATION.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
changes in docs
Here's the updated version of Introduction section of actors_privileges_deployments.md:
“This document provides a comprehensive overview of the actors involved in the smart contract system and outlines their respective privileges and roles. Different roles (we call them domains) are granted via the AddressManager contract’s setAddress() function. The idea is very similar to Optimism’s AddressManager, except that we use the chainId + domainName as the key for a given address. We need to do so because, for bridging purposes, the destination chain’s bridge address needs to be included to signal that the message hash is tamper-proof. Every contract which needs some role-based authentication needs to inherit from the AddressResolver contract. This will serve as a ‘middleman/lookup’ by querying the AddressManager to determine if a given address is allowed to act on behalf of that domain or not.”
Changes made:
“domain” to “domains”
“Idea is very similar Optimism’s AddressManager” to “The idea is very similar to Optimism’s AddressManager”
Added “to” in “we need to do so”
“signaling the message hash is tamper-proof” to “to signal that the message hash is tamper-proof” -- with this phrase I'm not quite sure what you wanted to say, but I tried my best to edit that.
Spam policy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: