uses arb test mint token as example for updated contracts #4
Conversation
| bytes memory data | ||
| ) external returns (bool success); | ||
|
|
||
| event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value, bytes data); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The name is duplicated in the Transfer event of IERC20Upgradeable, is that OK?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the interface is declared duplicate, I think you need to remove one or the other.
contracts/Dev.sol
Outdated
| contract aeERC20 is ERC20PermitUpgradeable, TransferAndCallToken, ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable { | ||
| using AddressUpgradeable for address; | ||
|
|
||
| constructor() public initializer { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you can delete this constructor.
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| contract ArbDEVTokenL1 is aeERC20, ICustomToken { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you need not to create this contract in upgradable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this contract should be upgradeable. Because Arbitrum is still unstable, and the requirements may change.
| function mint() external { | ||
| _mint(msg.sender, 50000000); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this function is needed. Maybe for testing or something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If such an interface is required, we can upgrade this implementation contract later. Therefore, we can remove functions that we think are unnecessary.
No description provided.