Add CreateX factory for new chain deployment - #215
Conversation
…kchainComputing/PoCo into feature/create-x-clean
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #215 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 84.50% 84.50%
========================================
Files 35 35
Lines 1084 1084
Branches 221 221
========================================
Hits 916 916
Misses 168 168 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| "usefactory": true, | ||
| "Factory": "0xba5Ed099633D3B313e4D5F7bdc1305d3c28ba5Ed", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "usefactory": true, | |
| "Factory": "0xba5Ed099633D3B313e4D5F7bdc1305d3c28ba5Ed", | |
| "factory": "0xba5Ed099633D3B313e4D5F7bdc1305d3c28ba5Ed", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was to match with the other addresses but I can change to lower case :)
"AppRegistry": null,
"DatasetRegistry": null,
"WorkerpoolRegistry": null
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lowercase is not really the issue, mentioning merge :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh sorry, thanks for that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| const rlcFactory = new RLC__factory().connect(owner); | ||
| if (token) { | ||
| console.log(`Using existing RLC token at: ${token}`); | ||
| await deployments.save('RLC', { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess you are doing this for later deployments.get('RLC'). For which network is it missing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes doing that for arbitrum sepolia actually and local test on hardhat those two deploy the RLC contract and the addresses are different
| const rlcContract = await rlcFactory.deploy(); | ||
| await rlcContract.waitForDeployment(); | ||
| const rlcAddress = await rlcContract.getAddress(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| const rlcContract = await rlcFactory.deploy(); | |
| await rlcContract.waitForDeployment(); | |
| const rlcAddress = await rlcContract.getAddress(); | |
| const rlcAddress = await rlcFactory.deploy() | |
| .then((contract) => contract.waitForDeployment()) | |
| .then((contract) => contract.getAddress()); |
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| const isFujiFork = process.env.FUJI_FORK == 'true'; | ||
| const isArbitrumSepoliaFork = process.env.ARBITRUM_SEPOLIA_FORK == 'true'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Keeping only a single variable isFork doesn't fit us?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here is to select the current chain to fork either local as bellecour, fuji, or arbi
Maybe I can re-work on it, but did not seen yet how I could change it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gonna check that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Made some research, can't figure it out a better way than what we have rn
| etherscan: { | ||
| apiKey: { | ||
| mainnet: process.env.ETHERSCAN_API_KEY || '', | ||
| fuji: process.env.SNOWTRACE_API_KEY || '', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which purpose is it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Make it possible to verify poco in case of new deployment of these chains (?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oups typo I guess
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| bellecour: 'nothing', // a non-empty string is needed by the plugin. | ||
| }, | ||
| customChains: [ | ||
| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Co-authored-by: Zied Guesmi <[email protected]>
…ership transfer into separate functions
…d logic for factory address handling and deployment
…ove factory initialization
zguesmi
changed the title
…Arbitrum Sepolia configurations
…pdate references in loadHardhatFixtureDeployment
…lization; update config for optional factoryType and salt
4 participants
No description provided.