feat: release v1 #8
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ch (#5) According to [Connext Forum](https://forum.connext.network/t/rfc-partnership-token-agreements/938), the agreement that Wonderland, Veil and Bootload (other partners have), unlocks at the same time, for every partner, one year after launch, a date that we all know (sept 5th 2023), and have the same 1/13ths schedule. So, inputting `startTime` at constructor makes no logic, since that's sth that can be shared accross all partners, this PR aims to reduce that unnecessary constructor argument. In the process of crafting this PR, a test failed hinting me that we missed a big issue, we need to use Llamapay V2. Luckily, this means no contract changes, and only to the test suite, but because of this test, we've realized that we almost failed BIG time. Pushing this PoC with some TODOs in the codebase, the constructor args are gonna be only beneficiary and amount (only thing that differs between partners), and in the testing suite, we need to be using LlamaPay v2. Let's do this approach: - import the Deploy script in the Integration tests - generically test `ConnextVestingWallet` using portions of `TOTAL_AMOUNT()` (and not precise numbers) - specify test `LlamaVesting` showing the expected limiting behaviours: - launch date - launch + 1yr - 1 - launch + 1yr (e.g. `assertEq(.., 1_920_000 ether)`) - launch + 1yr + 1mth - launch + 1yr + 1yr  The way to do this test is probably run it, see the failing expectations, and input what's expected to receive in the tests, right? like, too lazy to calc, but that's a good thing!! the fact that the dev KNOWS and inputs the expected amount at each date, means that there are no doubts about what's expected to happen, please declare those expectations as `x ether` numbers (having a max delta of `1 ether`) --------- Co-authored-by: Dristpunk <[email protected]>
Apply natspec-smells and fix missing natspec --------- Co-authored-by: Gas <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.