Feat: createX #11
Feat: createX #11
Conversation
…move obsolete files
… and CreateX factory
…factory addresses
…act instantiation
…ommands and RPC URL handling
Le-Caignec
left a comment
Le-Caignec
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I created a new library named RLCOFTDeployer to factorize the code shared between the deployment functions of the RLCOFT and RLCOFTMock contracts, as they perform very similar operations.
| - name: Run Forge unit tests | ||
| run: make unit-test | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Run Forge e2e tests | ||
| run: make e2e-test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Split tests for better issues isolation
test/units/mocks/RLCOFTMock.sol
Outdated
| address createXFactory, | ||
| bytes32 salt | ||
| ) public returns (address) { | ||
| return RLCOFTDeployer.deployRLCOFT( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not make the oposit : use Deploy.deploy insted of creating a new library only for this function ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The library is used in two places: once in the script/RLCOFT and once here.
Its purpose is to mutualize the deployment logic of both OftMock and OFT contracts, which share the same constructor and initialize parameters.
By centralizing this logic, the library helps factorize the deployment code and avoid duplication.
Note: An abstract contract could serve the same purpose. However, I chose to use a library for this implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this answer your question ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes I propose a new architcture in comment in the library, where we could use the lib in 3 places
…ter and RLCOFT scripts
No description provided.