Skip to content

chore(eth-fee-proxy-pn): update supported networks #943

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
alexandre-abrioux wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

chore(eth-fee-proxy-pn): update supported networks #943

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 14 additions & 1 deletion packages/advanced-logic/src/extensions/payment-network/ethereum/fee-proxy-contract.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -12,7 +12,20 @@ export default class EthereumFeeProxyPaymentNetwork<
public constructor(
extensionId: ExtensionTypes.ID = ExtensionTypes.ID.PAYMENT_NETWORK_ETH_FEE_PROXY_CONTRACT,
currentVersion: string = CURRENT_VERSION,
public supportedNetworks: string[] = ['mainnet', 'rinkeby', 'goerli', 'private'],
public supportedNetworks: string[] = [
Copy link
Contributor

@yomarion yomarion Oct 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it still relevant? Or shouldn't we map some kind of EVM-compatible pn?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@alexandre-abrioux alexandre-abrioux Oct 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wondered why we did not compute this directly from the artifacts, since we have the CURRENT_VERSION constant in the PN could we just check that the contract is deployed for this version and that would be good enough?

requestNetwork/packages/smart-contracts/src/lib/artifacts/EthereumFeeProxy/index.ts

Lines 58 to 68 in a9e3f3e

'0.2.0': {
abi: ABI_0_1_0,
deployment: {
private: {
address: '0x3d49d1eF2adE060a33c6E6Aa213513A7EE9a6241',
creationBlockNumber: 0,
},
rinkeby: {
address: '0xfCFBcfc4f5A421089e3Df45455F7f4985FE2D6a8',
creationBlockNumber: 10307582,
},

Copy link
Contributor

@yomarion yomarion Oct 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's not obvious, but it could be a way. The underlying question is: should we constrain library users and prevent the creation of requests that cannot be paid? I think that a warn could be enough.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@alexandre-abrioux alexandre-abrioux Oct 10, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree, better not to couple it. I tried this instead: #945

'private',
'rinkeby',
Copy link
Contributor

@olivier7delf olivier7delf Oct 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As we have migrated to Goerli, do we still need Rinkeby for legacy purposes?

'goerli',
'fantom',
'avalanche',
'fuse',
'matic',
'xdai',
'arbitrum-one',
'bsc',
'mainnet',
'celo',
],
) {
super(extensionId, currentVersion, supportedNetworks, RequestLogicTypes.CURRENCY.ETH);
}
Expand Down