Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
validation: decouple GasToken tests #803
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
validation: decouple GasToken tests #803
Changes from 3 commits
3124073
b2549f3
721c276
a5cb887
9b47dbd
224fb01
d29c33a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did we add a unit test for this yet? That is what I would expect in
gas_token_test.go
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this use an l1Client?
I'd like us to revisit the "reverting is acceptable" case b/c it seems like it could be hiding many skeletons like this one. Can we double check it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea this should be an l1Client. Good catch. What are the pre/post comments referring to? Pre-what? Those comments were just copied from existing code
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think what this is trying to do is to cope with deployments of the
SystemConfig
which don't expose theisCustomGasToken()
method. This would indicate they don't support custom gas tokens and therefore should automatically pass the test. A better approach would be to read the semver here, and unless it is greater than or equal to some version (which we would need to look up or ask someone for) we don't do the rest of the check.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe there is a semver for the
SystemConfigProxy
we could check?If its < a certain value, we don't make the following calls at all (because the method doesn't exist?):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Discussed some findings on semver in this discord thread. Not sure how to proceed at the moment. The
isCustomGasToken()
method seems to be missing on the latest standard version of theSystemConfig
contract