Infura based validator #188
Conversation
| console.log(name + ": \t" + actual + "\t" + compare(expected, actual)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async function Validate() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So this prints out the actual and expected values? Might be worth doing the comparison and printing out success/failure?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, I see, print does the compare, nevermind
| var PAUSED = false | ||
|
|
||
| // Name of current implementation artifact as stored in ./build/contracts/*.json | ||
| var FiatToken = artifacts.require("FiatToken"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an old version of the contract. We should be using "FiatTokenV1" instead of "FiatToken".
To ensure you use the correct version of the contract, I would recommend running "truffle compile --all" before executing this script.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will fix in CENT-251.
| @@ -22,6 +37,17 @@ module.exports = { | |||
| port: 8545, | |||
| network_id: "*" // Match any network id | |||
| } | |||
| // INFURA Setup | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is necessary to have the lines commented out? I think we should be able to have multiple different networks defined but only use the ones we wish for a particular task.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Infura requires HDWalletProvider which is not part of the default install. @eztierney and I couldnt figure out a reasonable way to update the yarn.lock file, so I commented out all code related to new packages. We will need to figure out a new yarn.lock workflow.
| @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ | |||
| // Address of the FiatToken Implementation | |||
| var fiatTokenAddress = "0x0882477e7895bdc5cea7cb1552ed914ab157fe56"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be nice to combine all of these contract variables with expected contract state to be defined in a single javascript object. That way, it's easy to see where to update variable values for when we need to validate the contract against a different set of expected state variables. What do you think?
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function getAddressFromSlotData(slotData) { | ||
| const rawAddress = slotData.substring(26, 86); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this generally true, that the address is always stored in the substring(26,86) section? Wondering if this will work for all of our potential cases with different variable values.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It depends what other data is packed into the slot. It is a 32 byte slot and the address takes up 20 bytes. If there are other variables (e.g. bools, uint8), they may be before or after the address, depending on the order in which they are declared.
| var blacklister = await proxiedToken.blacklister.call(); | ||
| print("blacklister", blacklister, BLACKLISTER); | ||
|
|
||
| await printMinterInfo(proxiedToken); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps we should add a printBlacklistedInfo as well?
|
|
||
| // initialized needs to retrieved manually | ||
| var slot8Data = await asyncGetStorageAt(proxiedToken.address, 8); | ||
| var initialized = slot8Data.substring(24,26); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this substring(24,26) correct? I thought we were looking for initialized = "0x" + slot8Data.substring(2,4); // first 2 hex-chars after 0x
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async function Validate() { | ||
| console.log("Connecting to contract..."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps this function should return an error code if any comparison fails?
|
Looks like this was merged while I was reviewing. Perhaps not worth fixing comments. |
Uses Infura to query Ethereum mainnet. The validation script queries the deployed proxy contract to verify that stored data is correct. See ./validate/README.validator.md for setup details.