Gauntlet main commands #19
Conversation
packages-ts/gauntlet-terra-contracts/src/commands/contracts/ocr2/setBilling.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages-ts/gauntlet-terra-contracts/src/commands/contracts/ocr2/setBilling.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
|
||
| type OnchainConfig = any | ||
|
|
||
| export type OffchainConfig = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This type looks useful across Gauntlet implementations. Also, the validation, which can be parameterized and used by specific implementations.
Do you think it's time we extract this, perhaps into gauntlet-core's ocr2 package, and reuse on Solana?
- https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink-solana/blob/e87a8aea0ad97485eca3f044cd0aba21af5dca5f/gauntlet/packages/gauntlet-solana-contracts/src/commands/contracts/ocr2/offchainConfig/write.ts#L14
- https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink-solana/blob/e87a8aea0ad97485eca3f044cd0aba21af5dca5f/gauntlet/packages/gauntlet-solana-contracts/src/commands/contracts/ocr2/offchainConfig/write.ts#L143
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, definitely. we can discuss this offline
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should go to @chainlink/gauntlet-contracts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| BILLING_ACCESS_CONTROLLER=${billingAC} | ||
| REQUESTER_ACCESS_CONTROLLER=${requesterAC} | ||
| `) | ||
| process.env.LINK = linkAddress |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we communicate via env variables in-process? Is there a better way to pipe flags/input data forward?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For now we don't. As these contracts are deployed only once, gauntlet expects them to be constants. Anyway it needs to be redefined, I don't know it make sense that these addresses are set as env
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't! They should be part of the RDD definition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
packages-ts/gauntlet-terra-contracts/src/commands/contracts/link/deploy.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| // { | ||
| // name: 'Upload Contracts', | ||
| // command: UploadContractCode, | ||
| // }, | ||
| // { | ||
| // name: 'Deploy LINK', | ||
| // command: DeployLink, | ||
| // id: this.stepIds.LINK, | ||
| // }, | ||
| // { | ||
| // name: 'Deploy Billing Access Controller', | ||
| // command: 'access_controller:deploy', | ||
| // id: this.stepIds.BILLING_ACCESS_CONTROLLER, | ||
| // }, | ||
| // { | ||
| // name: 'Deploy Request Access Controller', | ||
| // command: 'access_controller:deploy', | ||
| // id: this.stepIds.REQUEST_ACCESS_CONTROLLER, | ||
| // }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be excluded from the ocr2 deploy flow as we often want to reuse LINK & AC contracts, right?
RodrigoAD
force-pushed
the
gauntlet-main-commands
branch
from
eab81f3
to
e9d805a
Compare
flow with abstract wrapper split into command and contract input updated set payees input Split payees and transmitters on set payees ac and proxy abstract wrappers RDD inputs on ocr2 flow command remove logs
Refactor
RodrigoAD
force-pushed
the
gauntlet-main-commands
branch
from
0d39a10
to
5362717
Compare
|
This should be ready @krebernisak |
No description provided.