Deploy temp v1.9 ERC20Factory #164
Conversation
|
Note that Sepolia canonical address already has a version that supports decimals, but wanted to deploy anyway to allow devs 1:1 testing. |
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| {} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need to use the deploy template for this task or the generic template will suffice? seems like the deploy template is introducing some of these unnecessary files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What are the cases to use one vs. the other? I just followed the README
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hm yeah could probably be more clear/named better in the README, but deploy template is typically used to deploy an entirely new network (eg all OP contracts), generic template can be used for one-off tasks like a deployment of a single contract or an upgrade etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh I see, what's the make command for that? I can remove empty folders/files
|
|
||
| contract RunERC20FactoryDeploy is Script { | ||
| function run() public { | ||
| uint256 deployerPrivateKey = vm.envUint("PRIVATE_KEY"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we've generally avoided any production level interaction with local keys (see assessment here)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the paved road for this? This doesn't seem to be documented here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wilsoncusack Small remarks, but otherwise looks good. Also, would be nice as Anika mentioned to remove excess files for clarity and ease of review
| function run() public { | ||
| uint256 deployerPrivateKey = vm.envUint("PRIVATE_KEY"); | ||
| vm.startBroadcast(deployerPrivateKey); | ||
| new ERC20Factory{salt: '0xBA5ED'}(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't impact functionality in this case but better practice, especially if someone copies this code pattern down the line w/o knowing why there is no stopBroadcast()
| new ERC20Factory{salt: '0xBA5ED'}(); | |
| new ERC20Factory{salt: '0xBA5ED'}(); | |
| vm.stopBroadcast(); |
| function run() public { | ||
| uint256 deployerPrivateKey = vm.envUint("PRIVATE_KEY"); | ||
| vm.startBroadcast(deployerPrivateKey); | ||
| new ERC20Factory{salt: '0xBA5ED'}(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as with the other deploy script
| new ERC20Factory{salt: '0xBA5ED'}(); | |
| new ERC20Factory{salt: '0xBA5ED'}(); | |
| vm.stopBroadacast(); |
Deployed on Base and Base Sepolia at address 0xf10122d428b4bc8a9d050d06a2037259b4c4b83b.
We will need to wait for #158 in order to get this functionality at
0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000012, but as our docs are already pointing to a abnormal address (due to a past address collision issue fromcreate), we can update our docs immediately with this new address.