refactor: module suffix to execution and validation interfaces#134
Conversation
jaypaik
force-pushed
the
08-09-refactor_module_suffix_to_execution_and_validation_interfaces
branch
2 times, most recently
from
088d4f3 to
7fb76b7
Compare
adamegyed
left a comment
adamegyed
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, I'm not sure this is a net improvement. It helps in the concrete type naming (i.e. SingleSignerValidationModule) where it lines up with some other naming schemes (like AllowlistModule), but in the cases of the interfaces, it makes it really wordy.
Also flagged some instances where I think the added "address" wording is unnecessary.
I'm not sure it helps comprehension, but obviously this is coming from a very familiar perspective.
jaypaik
left a comment
jaypaik
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's pass this by the rest of the working group - I think it's a helpful change but if I'm the minority, happy to find alternatives or keep things as is!
jaypaik
force-pushed
the
08-09-refactor_module_suffix_to_execution_and_validation_interfaces
branch
from
7fb76b7 to
3bcaa2d
Compare
|
Some things to also look at: The events reference-implementation/src/interfaces/IModuleManager.sol Lines 13 to 16 in ed9258e And other places where we reference "validation functions" as In this PR, we separate the concept of a "validation module" and a "validation function" from both being under the umbrella term of "validation", which I think is a good thing. |
jaypaik
deleted the
08-09-refactor_module_suffix_to_execution_and_validation_interfaces
branch
3 participants
Open to pushback on this. I personally think this makes things clearer in understanding that all of these things are modules, and unifies file/contract naming across our module types.