Skip to content
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

Update proxy names #2323

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 4, 2024
Merged

Update proxy names #2323

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 4, 2024

Conversation

k1rill-fedoseev
Copy link
Member

Description and Related Issue(s)

Update displayed proxy names

Checklist for PR author

  • I have tested these changes locally.
  • I added tests to cover any new functionality, following this guide
  • Whenever I fix a bug, I include a regression test to ensure that the bug does not reappear silently.
  • If I have added, changed, renamed, or removed an environment variable
    • I updated the list of environment variables in the documentation
    • I made the necessary changes to the validator script according to the guide
    • I added "ENVs" label to this pull request

@@ -44,18 +44,18 @@ const PROXY_TYPES: Record<NonNullable<SmartContractProxyType>, {
link: 'https://github.com/wighawag/clones-with-immutable-args',
},
master_copy: {
name: 'GnosisSafe',
name: 'Safe proxy',
Copy link
Member

@rimrakhimov rimrakhimov Oct 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm voting for the second variant with "standard" or "pattern" word at the end (e.g., 'Safe proxy standard' or 'Safe proxy pattern'). Imho, "This proxy contract is detected via Safe proxy pattern" would be more descriptive. And the same goes with Compound protocol, imo

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What do you think about EIP-based proxies? I've decided to keep "Safe proxy" for consistency, because we don't write "EIP-1167 pattern". I think if we decide to use word "pattern", then it should be added for all variants.

Copy link
Member

@rimrakhimov rimrakhimov Oct 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"EIP-1167 pattern" looks fine for me

Copy link
Member

@rimrakhimov rimrakhimov Oct 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In general, though, I'm not sure, that the word "pattern" is necessary in case of EIPs, even if we decide to use it for non-EIP patterns. In my understanding, the word "EIP" implies that it is a standard by itself, while "Safe proxy" does not

@tom2drum tom2drum merged commit 8561afc into main Nov 4, 2024
7 checks passed
@tom2drum tom2drum deleted the kf/chore/proxy-names branch November 4, 2024 09:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants