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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add Governor signature nonces #4378
Add Governor signature nonces #4378
Changes from all commits
0619b5c
5ecb405
9e9e238
b84ea6e
2781b5f
ba44fa1
3f6e520
79c5982
35de382
a75ca26
b32bfdd
d518d65
71cd6ba
48a048c
8a810c9
f808576
2ed9be3
2ae0a13
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This is changing the ERC-165 ids, i.e. removing the previously supported interfaces (correctly) and adding new ones. However, we've discussed before that ERC-165 is not a good fit for this contract so we should really think whether we want to continue using it and particularly adding new interfaces.
No need to change anything on this PR, but it is an unsolved question we need to address.
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.
This comment is relevant to #4360
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.
Given that we are changing the signature of the
castVoteBySig
functions, what do you think about changing these arguments tobytes signature
and using the opportunity to add EIP-1271 compatibility?I don't think we should do this here so it's not a blocker for this PR.
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.
This also aligns really well with the addition of the
voter
argument, which is needed for EIP-1271.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.
According to what we discussed, I'll add the signature changes and 1271 compatibility in a follow up PR
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.