Skip to content
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

Add older Fantom and Fantom testnet #243

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jenikd
Copy link
Contributor

@jenikd jenikd commented Jun 13, 2023

Contracts are deployed by Fantom Foundation and verified on Fantom mainnet and testnet. Can be checked with ftmscan.

Adding older V1.2.0 contracts to be able to convert them to V1.3.0 with Safe Wallet Web

Fantom mainnet chainID 250
Fantom testnet chainID 4002

Adding V1.2.0 contracts to be able to convert them to V1.3.0 with
Safe Wallet Web
@jenikd jenikd requested review from a team as code owners June 13, 2023 08:53
@mmv08
Copy link
Member

mmv08 commented Jul 6, 2023

Adding older V1.2.0 contracts

Please move them to 1.2.0 folder, you added them to 1.1.1

@jenikd
Copy link
Contributor Author

jenikd commented Jul 6, 2023

Hi @mmv08, I've added gnosis_safe.json to v1.2.0 folder. For rest contracts the ABI has not changed from v1.1.1 so that's why I put them in there. If I move all them to v1.2.0 folder, then I had to specify also rest of the networks there, right?
As you can see, folder v1.2.0 now contains only gnosos_safe.json.

@jenikd
Copy link
Contributor Author

jenikd commented Aug 14, 2023

Hi @mmv08, if I add files like proxy factory and other libs into 1.2.0 folder, then also other files like src/factories.ts and src/libs.ts have to be changed to be able to find 1.2.0 abi version. Do you want me to do this kind of change?

@mmv08
Copy link
Member

mmv08 commented Aug 29, 2023

Why did you decide to use 1.2.0 for the deployment in the first place? Our services do not support it, as we skipped to 1.3.0 right away. Also the addresses seem to differ as the deterministic deployment wasn't used

@jenikd
Copy link
Contributor Author

jenikd commented Aug 29, 2023

Why did you decide to use 1.2.0 for the deployment in the first place? Our services do not support it, as we skipped to 1.3.0 right away. Also the addresses seem to differ as the deterministic deployment wasn't used

We deployed them in time, when 1.3.0 was still not released and also there was not deterministic deployment of the 1.2.0 in time of our deploy.
I know, that this state is not ideal and users had plenty time to upgrade their Safes to 1.3.0 via GUI.
From version 1.3.0 everything is OK and all contracts are deployed with deterministic addresses.

@Uxio0
Copy link
Member

Uxio0 commented Oct 11, 2023

We deployed them in time, when 1.3.0 was still not released and also there was not deterministic deployment of the 1.2.0 in time of our deploy. I know, that this state is not ideal and users had plenty time to upgrade their Safes to 1.3.0 via GUI. From version 1.3.0 everything is OK and all contracts are deployed with deterministic addresses.

You can use those contracts, but we have a clear policy about using deterministic addresses, so if you want your network to be included in this repo you need to deploy the contracts in the right addresses

@nlordell
Copy link
Collaborator

nlordell commented Jun 5, 2024

Closing as the PR has become stale.

@nlordell nlordell closed this Jun 5, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants