Skip to content

chore: deprecate Etherscan V1 #101

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Sep 1, 2025
Merged

chore: deprecate Etherscan V1 #101

merged 11 commits into from
Sep 1, 2025

Conversation

zerosnacks
Copy link
Member

@zerosnacks zerosnacks commented Aug 19, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Should be considered as part of foundry-rs/foundry#10913 and merged after initial approval of main PR: foundry-rs/foundry#11387

zerosnacks
zerosnacks commented Aug 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
@zerosnacks zerosnacks mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2025
Merged
6 tasks
@zerosnacks zerosnacks changed the title chore: drop Etherscan V1 support chore: drop Etherscan V1 support (do not merge) Aug 21, 2025
@zerosnacks zerosnacks changed the title chore: drop Etherscan V1 support (do not merge) chore: drop Etherscan V1 support Aug 21, 2025
@zerosnacks zerosnacks changed the title chore: drop Etherscan V1 support chore: deprecate Etherscan V1 Aug 21, 2025
@zerosnacks zerosnacks marked this pull request as ready for review August 28, 2025 14:32
@grandizzy
Copy link
Contributor

@zerosnacks does this means that we won't support custom etherscan v1 api like verifiers?

zerosnacks
zerosnacks commented Aug 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
@zerosnacks
Copy link
Member Author

zerosnacks commented Aug 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@zerosnacks does this means that we won't support custom etherscan v1 api like verifiers?

To my understanding the only difference between V1 / V2 is effectively the API URL construction and some special handling we do such as chain id insertion as a query parameter. I don't think there is actually a difference in the API itself. E.g. EtherscanVerificationProvider has not been changed.

onbjerg
onbjerg reviewed Aug 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
onbjerg
onbjerg previously approved these changes Aug 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
@grandizzy
Copy link
Contributor

@zerosnacks does this means that we won't support custom etherscan v1 api like verifiers?

To my understanding the only difference between V1 / V2 is effectively the API URL construction and some special handling we do such as chain id insertion as a query parameter. I don't think there is actually a difference in the API itself. E.g. EtherscanVerificationProvider has not been changed.

yeah, just to make sure we properly handle this 👍

grandizzy
grandizzy previously approved these changes Aug 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
@zerosnacks zerosnacks marked this pull request as draft August 28, 2025 16:27
zerosnacks
zerosnacks commented Aug 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
@zerosnacks zerosnacks mentioned this pull request Aug 29, 2025
Merged
zerosnacks and others added 2 commits August 29, 2025 14:34
@zerosnacks
fix: avoid glueing with chain, the URL is available directly and co…
7fc6e27 
…rrectly in `alloy-chains`. (#109)

part of #101

also avoids any unnecessary insertions of `chainid` as query parameter
for other verifiers (though they were tolerant of it)
@zerosnacks
remove irrelevant unused constant
f5b46b2
@zerosnacks zerosnacks marked this pull request as ready for review August 29, 2025 13:13
@zerosnacks zerosnacks dismissed stale reviews from grandizzy and onbjerg August 29, 2025 14:29

stale

grandizzy
grandizzy approved these changes Sep 1, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@grandizzy grandizzy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm!

@zerosnacks zerosnacks merged commit 02c2a06 into main Sep 1, 2025
8 checks passed
@zerosnacks zerosnacks deleted the zerosnacks/drop-etherscan-v1-support branch September 1, 2025 08:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@grandizzy grandizzy grandizzy approved these changes

@DaniPopes DaniPopes Awaiting requested review from DaniPopes DaniPopes is a code owner

@klkvr klkvr Awaiting requested review from klkvr klkvr is a code owner

@mattsse mattsse Awaiting requested review from mattsse mattsse is a code owner

@yash-atreya yash-atreya Awaiting requested review from yash-atreya

@0xrusowsky 0xrusowsky Awaiting requested review from 0xrusowsky 0xrusowsky is a code owner

@onbjerg onbjerg Awaiting requested review from onbjerg onbjerg is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@zerosnacks @grandizzy @onbjerg