-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
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
Update base-org/contracts dependency #356
Conversation
b455e57
to
9dd4e2a
Compare
This can be simplified with base-org/contracts#103... converting to draft until this is merged |
4457df7
to
2f2f1d1
Compare
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.
This looks great, and the upstream base-org/contracts
change are really nice. Thank you for this!
I tested one of the tasks before and after this change to ensure that the same data-to-sign was produced, as well as the same output / assertions.
Before merging, @Ethnical can you:
- Double check that tasks generate the same data to sign before and after this change
- Also verify the presigned pauses (https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/superchain-ops/pull/356/files#r1825095331)
- Review Refactor MultisigBuilder and NestedMultisigBuilder base-org/contracts#97, just to ensure we're familiar with the changes so we know how they might help us with upcoming superchain-ops improvements
I don't expect any issues with any of the above, but just want to be sure before we merge
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've confirmed all the above tasks, so will merge
@mdehoog One thing I noticed is that the state overrides in the nested case seem to be different—we no longer update the Safe owners to be a single owner of the Multicall3 contract. Was this intentional, and if so what is the new approach for nested overrides?
thanks for the review @mds1! I didn't intentionally update the simulation overrides, but I believe the |
I noticed differently tenderly URLs when comparing the And corresponding screenshot of the tenderly UI when loading that URL The issue here might be related to the fact that the task is already executed and now effective has a no-op state diff, so I did not investigate this much |
Description
We did a big cleanup of the
*MultisigBuilder
contracts in base-org/contracts#97.This PR bumps the base-org/contracts dependency to pick up these changes, and makes all the required updates for the scripts.
Tests
I tested one of the tasks before and after this change to ensure that the same data-to-sign was produced, as well as the same output / assertions.