Skip to content

Conversation

nicholaspai and others added 30 commits January 4, 2024 12:23
This PR showcases how we will remove all non-USS functionality in the spoke pools once all non-USS deposits are fills, fills are refunded, and roots are executed.

This PR reduces the bytecode significantly and means we can use the full optimizer runs setting for compiling these new contracts
Signed-off-by: nicholaspai <npai.nyc@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: nicholaspai <npai.nyc@gmail.com>
This PR implements a simple find-and-replace of "USS" with "V3" to make it more clear that this is a new version of the Across protocol
that supports new features such as cross-chain token-swaps. USS is an internal code name for "Universal Settlement Service" but this is
not neccessariy the language that will be used to market this product. So, renaming to V3 makes these contract changes more of a blank
slate.
@nicholaspai nicholaspai marked this pull request as ready for review March 1, 2024 21:36
@nicholaspai nicholaspai requested review from mrice32 and pxrl March 1, 2024 21:37
@pxrl
Copy link
Contributor

pxrl commented Mar 4, 2024

@nicholaspai Do you plan to update deployments.json in this PR?

Aside from that...this is all autogenerated, but do you think there are any specific checks we should make as part of reviewing this change?

@nicholaspai
Copy link
Member Author

@nicholaspai Do you plan to update deployments.json in this PR?

Aside from that...this is all autogenerated, but do you think there are any specific checks we should make as part of reviewing this change?

Nope, AFAIK the deployments.json only lists the proxy contracts or the SpokePool addresses that any client would be interfacing with

@nicholaspai
Copy link
Member Author

nicholaspai commented Mar 4, 2024

@nicholaspai Do you plan to update deployments.json in this PR?
Aside from that...this is all autogenerated, but do you think there are any specific checks we should make as part of reviewing this change?

Nope, AFAIK the deployments.json only lists the proxy contracts or the SpokePool addresses that any client would be interfacing with

I think checking the forge layouts is important, i can publish those as part of this PR? Finally, I think just double checking the new SpokePool changes we committed in 666bccb and that we are now deploying in this PR is paramount

@nicholaspai nicholaspai marked this pull request as draft March 5, 2024 23:24
@nicholaspai
Copy link
Member Author

Consider re-deploying after removing depositFor if we upgrade the SpokePoolVerifier in the frontend which IIUC is the only user of this function

@pxrl
Copy link
Contributor

pxrl commented Mar 6, 2024

@nicholaspai Do you plan to update deployments.json in this PR?
Aside from that...this is all autogenerated, but do you think there are any specific checks we should make as part of reviewing this change?

Nope, AFAIK the deployments.json only lists the proxy contracts or the SpokePool addresses that any client would be interfacing with

Yeah, good point - no need to update deployments.json 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@mrice32 mrice32 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good! +1 on the new storage layouts in the diff -- very helpful to take a pass on those before deploying.

If the removal of depositFor was not removed in the audited version, I would suggest we leave it.

I'm assuming it's not causing bytecode issues or anything, right?

@nicholaspai
Copy link
Member Author

Looks good! +1 on the new storage layouts in the diff -- very helpful to take a pass on those before deploying.

If the removal of depositFor was not removed in the audited version, I would suggest we leave it.

I'm assuming it's not causing bytecode issues or anything, right?

nope!

@nicholaspai nicholaspai marked this pull request as ready for review March 7, 2024 14:45
@nicholaspai nicholaspai merged commit 127f84a into master Mar 8, 2024
@nicholaspai nicholaspai deleted the npai/deploy-spoke-pool-2 branch March 8, 2024 15:58
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.

4 participants