Specify type(uint256).max behaviors
#394
Conversation
…into docs/max-uint256
…into docs/max-uint256
Rubilmax
requested review from
adhusson,
QGarchery,
MerlinEgalite,
julien-devatom,
MathisGD and
Jean-Grimal
…into docs/max-uint256
Rubilmax
force-pushed
the
docs/migration
branch
from
2b9418a
to
07fa76f
Compare
|
conflicts though @Rubilmax |
yes id prefer having the 2 other PRs merged first |
| @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ abstract contract ERC4626Bundler is BaseBundler { | |||
| /// @dev Initiator must have previously transferred their assets to the bundler. | |||
| /// @dev Assumes the given `vault` implements EIP-4626. | |||
| /// @param vault The address of the vault. | |||
| /// @param assets The amount of assets to deposit. Pass `type(uint256).max` to deposit the bundler's assets. | |||
| /// @param assets The amount of assets to deposit. Capped at the bundler's assets. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| /// @param assets The amount of assets to deposit. Capped at the bundler's assets. | |
| /// @param assets The amount of assets to deposit. Capped at the bundler's balance. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know we use balance for the ERC20.balanceOf elsewhere, but here I think it's useful to make the distinction between assets and shares (since shares are returned by ERC4626.balanceOf below)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but it's inconsistent with the other contracts right ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes it is inconsistent but still it is clearer in the context of ERC4626
|
I'm in favor of merging this in the other PR and review the other one as the changes are closely related |
Rubilmax
force-pushed
the
docs/migration
branch
from
336183b
to
cb79260
Compare
…to docs/max-uint256
Sorry i read this after having merged the other but in any case this PR also contains independent changes so IMO it is better to have it independent |
No description provided.