-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
Spec Balancer hard fork #87
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.
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
Conversation
filoozom
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested a few changes. Some EIPs has brackets but no link, and some EIPs don't have brackets. I added links to the Ethereum specs, but we should probably be consistent in having or not having links for each EIP reference.
execution/balancer_recovery.md
Outdated
| and block.header.timestamp >= BALANCER_HARDFORK_TIMESTAMP | ||
| ): | ||
| attacker_acct = state.account(BALANCER_ATTACKER_ADDRESS) | ||
| if attacker_acct.bytecode != BALANCER_RESCUE_BYTECODE: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this if condition necessary? The result would be the same with or without, even if they are already identical (which shouldn't happen either way). I guess that this also assumes that the code hash gets updated automatically by setting the bytecode?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, I can exclude
execution/balancer_recovery.md
Outdated
| # ... continue with regular block processing, including EIP-4788 and EIP-2935. | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Bytecode |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A nit, but this isn't really bytecode. Maybe call it "Solidity contract" and then mention that the bytecode is generated from this contract?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, can you share the exact solc compilers flags you used to generate the final bytecode?
Co-authored-by: Philippe Schommers <[email protected]>
Updated documentation to reflect Solidity contract details.
Added information about the test version of the contract and its deployment address.
Updated the Solidity contract section with specific compiler version and optimizations details. Added information about the deployed test version of the contract and reproducibility instructions.
filoozom
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Probably just a nit, but all else looks good to me now!
Co-authored-by: Philippe Schommers <[email protected]>
Spec Balancer fork, and the specific change with a reference document in the style of an EIP