ethpmV3 support#3247
Conversation
34ebb36 to
46618af
Compare
| ipfsProtocol: "https", | ||
| ipfsPort: "5001", | ||
| registry: { | ||
| address: "0x8011df4830b4f696cd81393997e5371b93338878", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy to deploy an un-authenticated registry for truffle to use as its default, unless you guys want to handle that. I'm 50/50 on whether it should be on mainnet (better reliability / authority / helps minimize spam packages) or on any testnet (much much cheaper / easier to start getting your hands dirty with publishing ethpm packages)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this field respect ENS names?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, though right now it only permits ens on mainnet. However, upon further investigation it looks like truffle supports ens on all testnets except kovan, so I updated it to support ens on these other testnets.
| gasPrice: 100000000000, | ||
| data: encodedTxData | ||
| }); | ||
| try { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like there might be a better mechanism available somewhere in truffle that manages sending txs with a more user-friendly interface? Could you point me in the right direction...
gnidan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here's an initial review on the @truffle/core plumbing stuff
| ipfsProtocol: "https", | ||
| ipfsPort: "5001", | ||
| registry: { | ||
| address: "0x8011df4830b4f696cd81393997e5371b93338878", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this field respect ENS names?
| builder: {}, | ||
| help: { | ||
| usage: "truffle install <package_name>[@<version>]", | ||
| usage: "truffle install <packageId> [--alias]", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| usage: "truffle install <packageId> [--alias]", | |
| usage: "truffle install <package-identifier> [--alias]", |
bc0f2df to
573f9a0
Compare
9c496e7 to
2d2a688
Compare
|
@eggplantzzz Thanks for the review! I've changed or responded to your comments. Let me know if there's anything else glaring / obvious that needs addressing. In terms of the failing tests... Has there been any significant changes to the resolver recently? It seems to me that the |
|
Sorry about jerking you back and forth on the |
|
As for the CI failures, I don't think anything changed with the migrations. I'll take a quick look and see if I can find anything out about this. |
|
So @njgheorghita, I took a look and your tests are failing because there were a bunch of breaking changes to some of the compilation packages. |
d3a25a0 to
32736ce
Compare
|
@eggplantzzz Nailed it! Thanks for looking into it and the fix! |
8578562 to
00a55ef
Compare
|
@eggplantzzz I can definitely update |
|
@njgheorghita Oh, I think there was just a merge conflict so I resolved it for you. I hope you don't mind...sorry if I stepped on your toes. It should be fine to continue as normal. And thanks for the fix! |
e4f0d73 to
3ad36aa
Compare
Truffle support for the ethpmV3 spec!
Hey @gnidan and @eggplantzzz . Thanks for your help so far in discussing this. Here's a first pass at ethpmV3 x truffle. I'm sure there's plenty of areas where my javascript is smelly, please point them out anywhere you see them. After a review, I plan to run this through another thorough round of integration tests, & I have an update to the
trufflesuite.comdocs in the pipeline to reflect these changes.