Skip to content
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

fix: warp route deployment verification #3490

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

paulbalaji
Copy link
Contributor

@paulbalaji paulbalaji commented Mar 26, 2024

should fix the problem whilst also not breaking the format of existing artifact read/writes

drive-by fix to contractverifier - allows propagation of apikeys from custom chain metadata (e.g. chains.yaml)

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Mar 26, 2024

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: c9c2326

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 26, 2024

Codecov Report

Merging #3490 (c9c2326) into main (11f257e) will not change coverage.
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files
@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #3490   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   0.00%   0.00%           
=====================================
  Files          1       1           
  Lines         16      16           
=====================================
  Misses        16      16           
Components Coverage Δ
core ∅ <ø> (∅)
hooks ∅ <ø> (∅)
isms ∅ <ø> (∅)
token ∅ <ø> (∅)
middlewares ∅ <ø> (∅)

@paulbalaji paulbalaji marked this pull request as ready for review March 26, 2024 17:39
Signed-off-by: Paul Balaji <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Balaji <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@yorhodes yorhodes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good
please add a changeset

typescript/cli/src/deploy/warp.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

honestly I would be happy to change the serialization format from
[TokenType]: address to [ContractName]: address, which is more consistent with the rest of the codebase

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(albeit this is a breaking change)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd like to use a more multi-protocol format if we're going to change it. I guess [ContractName] is a step in that direction. I'd prefer [TokenStandard] : address since TokenStandard is essentially the multi-protocol successor to TokenType.

Comment on lines +332 to +333
router: contract[contractName as keyof TokenFactories]['address'],
tokenType,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

honestly im not a fan of this different artifact shape
its another unnecessary layer of indirection

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[ContractSourceName]: address is more desirable
is this format recovered too?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I initially used this two-file output shape for better consistency with what the other deployers (core, infra) were doing but maybe now's the time to just cut this one and use only the warp-config shape

@ltyu ltyu mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2024
@paulbalaji
Copy link
Contributor Author

created an alternative fix that doesn't change any of the warp artifact logic, simply creates a deployContractWithName that lets you override the contractName used at deploy time without changing the factory key
#3494

@paulbalaji
Copy link
Contributor Author

closing in favour of #3494

@paulbalaji paulbalaji closed this Mar 27, 2024
@paulbalaji paulbalaji deleted the fix/warp-verify branch June 14, 2024 13:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants