-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 157
chore: move all interfaces to dedicated package #1187
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
base: horizon
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 26 commits
be8d5a1
942c1aa
f86ffbb
63b8c27
32ef00c
f8bb3a5
7f21b0b
be1acc5
8aef58d
0112d1b
9c67f29
495e576
71b90c4
0f7080d
2bfd7e0
62eb5aa
5f707a8
2c94da4
5ef5fe9
e75ae57
039a32e
f6c2e1c
31edeed
4f23eea
fbe38f9
ed51926
b4fe809
a8469af
8b7f14c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ | |
"postinstall": "husky", | ||
"clean": "pnpm -r run clean", | ||
"clean:all": "pnpm clean && rm -rf node_modules packages/*/node_modules", | ||
"build": "chmod +x ./scripts/build && ./scripts/build", | ||
"build": "pnpm -r run build", | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Good for this PR, a discussion point though: Locally I am trying splitting
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Do you think we should keep child packages long term? I don't exactly remember at this point why we added those, I think to break the cyclic dependency? If so, perhaps with There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think we need child packages, and/or siblings that combine dependencies across contract packages. They are to break cyclic dependencies, I think interfaces does not by itself fully solve that. It might mean that contract packages no longer rely on toolshed? Or is that still via dynamic loading? However, deployment has cross package needs for compiled contracts. (I think there is an argument for having a single deploy sibling, that spans contract packages.) The same scenario for tests, similar nuances to deploy, but I think not as strong a case for (just) a single test package spanning contract packages. If we do not separate them, I think we can appear to get away with it by recompiling dependencies, which the hardhat-dependency-compiler can do, but then you end up with other issues due to that duplication and inconsistency. I suspect contract compilation should be separate reusable step from what we do with the compilied artifacts (deployment, testing, etc). But I might be missing something; I am new to this package management system. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Got it. I'm not too sold on any alternative to be honest, there are things i dislike in both :p. But happy to keep iterating. |
||
"lint": "pnpm lint:ts; pnpm lint:sol; pnpm lint:natspec; pnpm lint:md; pnpm lint:json; pnpm lint:yaml", | ||
"lint:ts": "eslint --fix --cache '**/*.{js,ts,cjs,mjs,jsx,tsx}'; prettier -w --cache --log-level warn '**/*.{js,ts,cjs,mjs,jsx,tsx}'", | ||
"lint:sol": "solhint --fix --noPrompt --noPoster 'packages/*/contracts/**/*.sol'; prettier -w --cache --log-level warn '**/*.sol'", | ||
|
This file was deleted.
This file was deleted.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.