[contracts] Interface changes
See original GitHub issueNeed to finalize interface changes that we have gotten suggestions on from users.
Things that could be important:
- adding in a
receivingAsset
that can be the local or adopted asset for that chain - adding in a way to specify slippage boundaries
-
adding in-> can do this in an upgrade since only additive if neededxcallExactOut
path - specifying if you want to use slow or fast liquidity
- add
getExecutor()
toIConnextHandler.sol
to expose the executor via interface. similar to how we havegetConnext()
inIExecutor.sol
cc @just-a-node – if there’s any other feedback you’ve been getting now is the time to surface it!
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created a year ago
- Comments:18 (18 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
ParallelChange - Martin Fowler
Parallel change, also known as expand and contract, is a pattern to implement backward-incompatible changes to an interface in a safe manner, by ......
Read more >Solidity Tutorial: all about interfaces | by Jean Cvllr - Medium
The contracts inheriting from the interface will have to implement all the functions defined in the interface.
Read more >Contracts — Solidity 0.8.17 documentation
External functions are part of the contract interface, which means they ... Modifiers can be used to change the behaviour of functions in...
Read more >These Small Changes in Interface Design Could Save You ...
These Small Changes in Interface Design Could Save You From Big Legal Headaches. Users must be notified of terms in a conspicuous manner...
Read more >Explaining how an Interface is a contract
Most students in that age-range have no personal experience with contracts, so the term is too abstract or remote. Secondly, using contract to...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Instead of sending it back through the bridge, they should just be able to retrieve their funds in madAssets and they can send back manually later right? We can wrap this up in a UI but I don’t think this needs to explicitly be part of the protocol.
Another request:
getExecutor()
toIConnextHandler.sol
to expose the executor via interface. similar to how we havegetConnext()
inIExecutor.sol