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

feat: add arbitrum one #389

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 15, 2024
Merged

feat: add arbitrum one #389

merged 6 commits into from
May 15, 2024

Conversation

alfetopito
Copy link
Collaborator

@alfetopito alfetopito commented May 14, 2024

Summary

Part of cowprotocol/cowswap#4310

Testing

For the permit info, I've added it temporarily to CoW Swap.
Try it out on https://swap-dev-git-feat-4310arbitrum-cowswap.vercel.app/

For the token form, this PR needs to be merged first.

@alfetopito alfetopito self-assigned this May 14, 2024
Copy link

New and removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Package New capabilities Transitives Size Publisher
npm/@cowprotocol/[email protected] network Transitive: filesystem, unsafe +24 19.6 MB cowprotocol_dev
npm/@cowprotocol/[email protected] Transitive: environment, eval, filesystem, network, shell, unsafe +318 56.6 MB

🚮 Removed packages: npm/@cowprotocol/[email protected], npm/@cowprotocol/[email protected]

View full report↗︎

@alfetopito alfetopito merged commit 40e9d85 into main May 15, 2024
5 checks passed
@alfetopito alfetopito deleted the feat/add_arbitrum_one branch May 15, 2024 16:40
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 15, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@anxolin anxolin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍


const tokenListsByNetwork: Record<SupportedChainId, string> = {
[SupportedChainId.MAINNET]: 'CowSwap.json',
[SupportedChainId.ARBITRUM_ONE]: 'CowSwap.json',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

At some point, we might want to break by network the lists, right?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure. I'm inclined to think now that we should keep them all in the same file, except test chains.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Im fine for now, but if we had 20 chains, and they all had 200 tokens you can easily see how we load data for users they don't need.

Anyways, not a big issue right now, if this is simpler, lets leave it for now

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants