Omit missing initializer calls error for initializers named *_unchained
#1161
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ernestognw
approved these changes
May 16, 2025
This was referenced May 20, 2025
Merged
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR omits the "missing initializer calls" error when the child contract's initializer name is
*_unchained. These by design should not need to call parent initializers, as described in https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/5.x/upgradeable#multiple-inheritance.Note we still need to check that other child initializers properly call parent initializers, and some of those parent initializers can also be named
*_unchained. Tests have been added for these cases.Fixes #1150