Ts arb one bypass#4
Conversation
…d add env checker
This reverts commit 2b20bd48f3c3d9be7fb81c71e8ea4946cac33241.
…ner NFT mint and epoch start
… deployer need to make sure this isn't going to cause problems later..
| @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ | |||
| "use strict"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 rename file to flowGovernor.js
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok then remove it from this pull request as well?
| const { deploy } = deployments; | ||
| const { deployer } = await getNamedAccounts(); | ||
| const flow = await deployments.get('Flow'); | ||
| await deploy('MerkleClaim', { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 I thought you weren't going to do a merkle drop
There was a problem hiding this comment.
then remove the deployment script as well?
| @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ | |||
| import { HardhatRuntimeEnvironment } from 'hardhat/types' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 what is the removed folder about?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 just yeet the whole folder?
| // | ||
| console.log('Arbitrum Goerli Velocimeter Instruments deployed') | ||
|
|
||
| return true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should delete all the code from return true to the end of file
|
|
||
| const { deployer } = await getNamedAccounts() | ||
|
|
||
| // const escrow = await deployments.get('VotingEscrow') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 generally speaking all the commented code should be deleted
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| 42161 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 can probably remove the whole arbitrumOneOLD folder
|
|
||
| escrow.setVoter(address(voter)); | ||
|
|
||
| pairfactory.setVoter(address(voter)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 are you supposed to test something with this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if voter is not set then we cant set externalBribe on pair as voter is required to be the caller
|
|
||
| // Accrue fees on token0 | ||
| function _update0(uint256 amount) internal { | ||
| if (hasGauge == false) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 you can just say if (!hasGauge) for false and if (hasGauge) for true
| IBribe(externalBribe).notifyRewardAmount(token0, amount); //transfer fees to exBribes | ||
| uint256 _ratio = (amount * 1e18) / totalSupply; // 1e18 adjustment is removed during claim | ||
| if (_ratio > 0) { | ||
| index0 += _ratio; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 do we still need this index update?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It will be keeping track of something that we are not using. This is the part we need to be weary of. Could it cause any unintended consequences?
| emit Fees(msg.sender, amount, 0); | ||
| } | ||
| if (hasGauge == true) { | ||
| IBribe(externalBribe).notifyRewardAmount(token0, amount); //transfer fees to exBribes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 does ExternalBribe need to have ERC20 allowance from the Pair?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes it does. This is in the latest PR.
| uint256 _ratio = amount * 1e18 / totalSupply; // 1e18 adjustment is removed during claim | ||
| if (_ratio > 0) { | ||
| index0 += _ratio; | ||
| // function _update0(uint256 amount) internal { |
| // This makes tank updateable forever by the team address (multisig) | ||
|
|
||
| function acceptTank() external { | ||
| require(msg.sender == team, "not pending team"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 shouldn't this be pendingTank instead of team
| _updateFor(_gauge); | ||
| pools.push(_pool); | ||
| emit GaugeCreated(_gauge, msg.sender, _internal_bribe, _external_bribe, _pool); | ||
| Pair(_pool).setHasGauge(true); // may need to switch to IPair? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@duncan4123 yeah you should use IPair if possible
4 participants
No description provided.