updated foundry.toml with etherscanV2 links #926
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request involves two primary changes: updating the Changes
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
foundry.toml (1)
76-107: Consider adding API endpoint fallbacks.While standardizing on etherscan.io/v2/api is good for maintenance, consider keeping the original network-specific URLs as fallbacks in case of API issues.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
deployments/base.json(1 hunks)foundry.toml(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: run-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
- GitHub Check: analyze
🔇 Additional comments (3)
deployments/base.json (1)
43-43: Verify the new ReceiverAcrossV3 contract.Let's verify that the new contract address is properly deployed and verified on Base network.
✅ Verification successful
✓ ReceiverAcrossV3 contract update is valid
The new contract address is properly configured with the correct dependencies:
- Across SpokePool: 0x09aea4b2242abC8bb4BB78D537A67a245A7bEC64
- Executor: 0x4DaC9d1769b9b304cb04741DCDEb2FC14aBdF110
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the new ReceiverAcrossV3 contract on Base network # Expected results: Contract should be verified and match ReceiverAcrossV3 implementation # Check if contract is verified and get contract name curl -s -X GET "https://api.basescan.org/api?module=contract&action=getsourcecode&address=0xe054A981c7985DCA8B0A9546BcA93BB54101aB0d&apikey=${BASE_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY}" | jq -r '.result[0].ContractName' # Get contract creation transaction curl -s -X GET "https://api.basescan.org/api?module=account&action=txlist&address=0xe054A981c7985DCA8B0A9546BcA93BB54101aB0d&startblock=0&endblock=99999999&page=1&offset=1&sort=asc&apikey=${BASE_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY}" | jq -r '.result[0].from'Length of output: 511
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any references to the new contract address rg -i "0xe054A981c7985DCA8B0A9546BcA93BB54101aB0d" # Search for files related to ReceiverAcrossV3 rg -i "ReceiverAcrossV3" # Look for deployment documentation fd -t f "README|DEPLOY" -X cat {}Length of output: 42017
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check deployment scripts for ReceiverAcrossV3 rg -A 10 "ReceiverAcrossV3" script/deploy/facets/DeployReceiverAcrossV3.s.sol # Compare implementation with other chains rg -l "0xe054A981c7985DCA8B0A9546BcA93BB54101aB0d"Length of output: 870
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check global config for ReceiverAcrossV3 cat config/global.json || echo "File not found" # Check Base-specific config cat config/base.json || echo "File not found" # Check deployment requirements cat script/deploy/resources/deployRequirements.json || echo "File not found"Length of output: 23202
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check across configuration for Base network cat config/across.json || echo "File not found" # Find Executor contract address on Base rg -i "Executor.*0x" deployments/base.jsonLength of output: 6020
foundry.toml (2)
103-103: Verify Blockscout configuration for Rootstock.The Rootstock entry correctly specifies the Blockscout verifier, which is essential for proper contract verification.
76-107: Verify chain IDs and API endpoint format.The changes standardize most networks to use etherscan.io/v2/api with chainid parameter, which aligns with the PR objectives. However, let's verify the chain IDs match official network specifications.
✅ Verification successful
Chain IDs and API endpoints verified successfully
All chain IDs in the configuration match the official network specifications, and the API endpoint format is consistent with the standardization to etherscan.io/v2/api where applicable, with appropriate use of network-specific explorers and blockscout verifiers where needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify chain IDs against EIP-155 registry # Expected results: Chain IDs should match official specifications # Clone chainid.network repository which maintains official chain ID registry git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ethereum-lists/chains.git cd chains/_data/chains # Check chain IDs for specific networks echo "Verifying chain IDs..." for chain in "arbitrum" "base" "blast" "bsc" "celo" "cronos" "fantom" "fraxtal" "gnosis" "linea" "moonbeam" "moonriver" "optimism" "polygon" "polygonzkevm" "scroll" "taiko" "worldchain" do if [ -f "${chain}.json" ]; then echo "${chain}: $(jq .chainId ${chain}.json)" fi doneLength of output: 4283
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Fetch chain data from chainlist.org API echo "Fetching chain data from chainlist.org..." curl -s "https://chainid.network/chains.json" | jq -r '.[] | select(.chainId | tostring | match("42161|8453|81457|56|42220|25|250|252|100|59144|1284|1285|10|137|1101|534352|167000|480")) | "\(.name): \(.chainId)"' # Also check specific network documentation echo -e "\nChecking network documentation..." curl -s "https://docs.blast.io/about/networks" | grep -i "chain.*id" curl -s "https://docs.frax.com/fraxtal/networks" | grep -i "chain.*id"Length of output: 9223
Test Coverage ReportLine Coverage: 78.66% (2238 / 2845 lines) |
| @@ -73,37 +73,38 @@ base = "${ETH_NODE_URI_BASE}" | |||
|
|
|||
| [etherscan] | |||
| mainnet = { key = "${MAINNET_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY}", chain = "1" } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't checked that but the default url is: https://api.etherscan.io/api and doesn't have to be compatible with api key v2. I would add explicit url: https://api.etherscan.io/v2/api?chainid=1
| @@ -73,37 +73,38 @@ base = "${ETH_NODE_URI_BASE}" | |||
|
|
|||
| [etherscan] | |||
| mainnet = { key = "${MAINNET_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY}", chain = "1" } | |||
| arbitrum = { key = "${ARBITRUM_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY}", url = "https://api.arbiscan.io/api", chain = "42161" } | |||
| arbitrum = { key = "${ARBITRUM_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY}", url = "https://api.etherscan.io/v2/api?chainid=42161", chain = "42161" } | |||
| aurora = { key = "${AURORA_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY}", url = "https://explorer.mainnet.aurora.dev/api", chain = "1313161554", verifier = "blockscout" } | |||
| avalanche = { key = "${AVALANCHE_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY}", url = "https://api.snowtrace.io/api", chain = "43114" } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avalanche is also on supported chains list: https://docs.etherscan.io/etherscan-v2/getting-started/supported-chains
Which Jira task belongs to this PR?
Why did I implement it this way?
Because it's easier for us to use etherscanV2 with a shared API key to save the effort for every developer to register in the block explorer of a newly added network
Checklist before requesting a review
Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)