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

ReimbursementPool on Lynx #323

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Sep 4, 2024
Merged

ReimbursementPool on Lynx #323

merged 8 commits into from
Sep 4, 2024

Conversation

cygnusv
Copy link
Member

@cygnusv cygnusv commented Aug 29, 2024

Type of PR:

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Documentation
  • Other

Required reviews:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

What this does:

  • Introduces ReimbursementPool as a contract in our repo
  • Adapts this contract to our contract suite and OpenZeppelin v5
  • Deployment scripts and parameters for Lynx testnet
  • Script to set ReimbursementPool on Coordinator

Issues fixed/closed:

Why it's needed:

Explain how this PR fits in the greater context of the NuCypher Network.
E.g., if this PR address a nucypher/productdev issue, let reviewers know!

Notes for reviewers:

What should reviewers focus on?
Is there a particular commit/function/section of your PR that requires more attention from reviewers?

@cygnusv
Copy link
Member Author

cygnusv commented Sep 2, 2024

/// with this reimbursment pool. Can be unauthorized by the
/// owner only.
/// @param _contract Authorized contract.
function unauthorize(address _contract) external onlyOwner {
Copy link
Member

@derekpierre derekpierre Sep 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Bit of a nitpick. I know this was copied from a Keep contract, but should this be deauthorize? We've used the authorize/deauthorize parlance in other areas.

Same comment for the event.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that there's a divergence wrt to staking contracts but this contract is not related to staking, and I'd prefer if we limit changes unless we really need them.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Definitely not a "need" 😄

Copy link
Member

@derekpierre derekpierre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🎸

@KPrasch KPrasch merged commit 23e83b4 into nucypher:main Sep 4, 2024
2 checks passed
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