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

add updated deploys #350

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

add updated deploys #350

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

snreynolds
Copy link
Member

Related Issue

Which issue does this pull request resolve?

Description of changes

"transactionType": "CREATE",
"contractName": "PoolManager",
"contractAddress": "0xf242ce588b030d0895c51c0730f2368680f80644",
"contractAddress": "0xe8e23e97fa135823143d6b9cba9c699040d51f70",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i feel like ive said this every time... but imo we should never be pushing run-latest to github as its a file that gets updated regularly. It would be better to put run-timestamp to the repo so we can keep track of all deployments through time

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We discussed this on the previous merge and opted to do the opposite. Theres not really a benefit in knowing any of the old contracts... esp when we're changing interfaces so much.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

See this PR #293

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also you can just look at the github history if you rlly wanna know...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok... i wasnt part of that discussion. I still disagree, we regularly get questions that are like "is X an official uniswap deploy?" and i think it would be much easier to search to confirm/deny going forwards if all of the addresses we've deployed over time are tracked in the repo. That way we can easily say "yes but thats an outdated deploy" or "no" or "yes thats our latest deploy".

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🤷‍♀️ I feel like this is completely sufficient for our use case tbh which is to just track the latest address. We would never point an integrator to an old version of v4 especially since the interfaces continue to change. I do agree that is a question we get but usually its in regard to canonical deploys on other chains.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you feel really strongly I can change it to keep the old ones - Just leave one last comment to signal which way then

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey all. Would really appreciate having timestamped run-latest. I'm developing Uniswap hooks during a hackathon and the deployments in general seem all over the place sometimes haha. Just an input from my side, cheers!

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ contract DeployPosmTest is Script {
{
vm.startBroadcast();

posm = new PositionManager{salt: hex"03"}(
posm = new PositionManager{salt: hex"01"}(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why not just use create1 to stop needing to change the salt every time?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We actually usually don't need to change the salts each time bc the bytecode is so different from deploy to deploy. On posm I started using salt when I was testing to see how different ascii look on etherscan 😄

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I dont wanna change that though bc we've deployed the current deploys with create2 so nice to have a record in this PR what salt it was deployed with

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants