-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
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
Deploy Protocol Contracts on LightLink Mainnet and Testnet #1924
Deploy Protocol Contracts on LightLink Mainnet and Testnet #1924
Conversation
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.
Looks good to me, Lighlink recently reached out to integrate QRNG and we will have the providers redeploy to support the chain. We cannot merge this until @api3dao/chains issue is resolved.
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.
Can you address the references.json merge conflict? The file / export changed recently in #1929. It may only need merging master then rerunning of:
"deploy:generate-references": "hardhat run scripts/generate-references.ts", |
I'm still confused on the path forward with api3dao/chains#137. Should that be reopened and merged, followed by a 4.3.0 release (4.2.0 is already released)?
Currently the chains CI runs on every chain in the package, there needs to be a flag to disable CI operation on a chain (for more fringe chains) |
These deployments shouldn't be pushed here unless the same chain is already published in @api3/chains. Non-dAPI related chain additions to @api3/chains will create overhead for the dAPI operations. I thought you were going to do this completely off-repo. |
I think RRP deployments should live in this repo for completeness sake, the dependency on @api3/chains should be figured out IMO rather than have RRP deployments live in some other repo. Alternatively, we can have another repo "qrng-deployments" where we do all the rrp deployments if we do not want to support this. |
I thought api3/chains was the single source of truth for all chains and I lean this way:
Otherwise, we then have another source of chains and chain IDs to deal with. What could work is more streamlined or automated api3/chains release process to minimize the effort involved in adding a chain. |
I generally don't really follow what's going on with new chain integrations, but I'm happy to help streamline any processes with I assume this comment is the problematic one? I don't have much capacity at the moment to get too involved here, but it should be fairly straightforward to implement a new field that skips the chain in the CI. Happy to accept PRs if it's a blocker |
@andreogle - I find api3/chains quite dev friendly- didn't mean otherwise and apologies if it came off sounding that way. I created api3dao/chains#153 and assigned myself to work on now so this can unblock folks. |
I didn't take it that way at all 😄 Thanks for implementing the PR to skip provider checks 👍🏻 (cc @vanshwassan). I also just meant that I'm happy to try to help make the repo and/or process as streamlined as possible - whatever that might look like. I'm not a primary user of it so I don't always understand where the issues/blockers are. |
@vanshwassan - the PR for skipping a chain in CI is merged so now api3dao/chains#137 can be reopened, the new field added, merged, and api3/chains released. Then this PR, updated with the new api3/chains version, can be merged 😅 |
The |
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 the CI failures are because the PR is from your fork rather than from a branch within the repo and therefore lack the secrets necessary e.g. for pushing the docker containers. Next time can you use a branch? Otherwise LGTM
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.
Actually I see the yarn.lock
file hasn't updated- can you run yarn run bootstrap
followed by yarn run build
?
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.
Nice, and thanks for the patience on the small details
* Deployed protocol contracts on lightlink-goerli * Deployed protocol contracts on lightlink * `@api3/chains` version bump
Deployed and verified protocol contracts on LightLink Mainnet and LightLink Goerli Testnet.
LightLink Phoenix Mainnet:
AccessControlRegistry
AirnodeRrpV0
AirnodeRrpV0DryRun
RequesterAuthorizerWithAirnode
LightLink Pegasus Testnet:
AccessControlRegistry
AirnodeRrpV0
AirnodeRrpV0DryRun
RequesterAuthorizerWithAirnode