Skip to content

Conversation

fusmanii
Copy link
Contributor

@fusmanii fusmanii commented Aug 28, 2025

Removed these Spoke Pools:

  • Base_SpokePool.sol
  • Mode_SpokePool.sol
  • Redstone_SpokePool.sol
  • Zora_SpokePool.sol
  • Bob_SpokePool.sol
  • DoctorWho_SpokePool.sol

Created OP_SpokePool.sol that can be used for all of them since they all share the same code

Looking for feedback on if this is a good direction to go to

Comment on lines 97 to 99
"contracts/Zora_SpokePool.sol": LARGE_CONTRACT_COMPILER_SETTINGS,
"contracts/Mode_SpokePool.sol": LARGE_CONTRACT_COMPILER_SETTINGS,
"contracts/Base_SpokePool.sol": LARGE_CONTRACT_COMPILER_SETTINGS,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since these are gone we should be able to clean up a bunch here.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This one probably isn't the best candidate here, since it supports neither bridged nor native USDC. I think the Base SpokePool probably would be a better choice.

All of this is subject to whether there's a larger overhaul on the SpokePools wrt. bridge adapter modularity and configuration. But I think it makes sense to have a PR that handles the consolidation anyway, since it's basically inevitable that we delete these.

Copy link
Contributor

@bmzig bmzig Sep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Aren't all the spoke pools being deleted here the same up to comments?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes its just comment diff on all these spoke pool, in this case I think github randomly picked Bob to show as name change

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On a similar vein as https://github.com/across-protocol/contracts/pull/1087/files#r2355754767, I think you can refactor this entire scripts directory and just make a 001_DeployOpSpokePool.s.sol or something (and delete the other duplicate scripts). That would obviously require some knowledge of the chain ID, but I think you can get that, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yup wanted to get an initial feedback on the direction I am taking before I put more effort into it. Going to work on the deploy script next

Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Faisal Usmani <[email protected]>
@fusmanii fusmanii requested review from bmzig and pxrl September 23, 2025 18:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
do not merge do not merge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants