Add chain configuration for Mode #2272
Conversation
| "mode": { | ||
| "service_registry": "0x3C1fF68f5aa342D296d4DEe4Bb1cACCA912D95fE", | ||
| "service_registry_token_utility": "0x34C895f302D0b5cf52ec0Edd3945321EB0f83dd5", | ||
| "service_manager_token": "0x63e66d7ad413C01A7b49C7FF4e3Bb765C4E4bd1b", | ||
| "operator_whitelist": "0x3d77596beb0f130a4415df3D2D8232B3d3D31e44", | ||
| "gnosis_safe_proxy_factory": "0xBb7e1D6Cb6F243D6bdE81CE92a9f2aFF7Fbe7eac", | ||
| "gnosis_safe_same_address_multisig": "0xFbBEc0C8b13B38a9aC0499694A69a10204c5E2aB", | ||
| "staking_token": "0xE49CB081e8d96920C38aA7AB90cb0294ab4Bc8EA", | ||
| "staking_native_token": "0x88DE734655184a09B70700aE4F72364d1ad23728", | ||
| "staking_verifier": "0x87c511c8aE3fAF0063b3F3CF9C6ab96c4AA5C60c", | ||
| "staking_factory": "0x75D529FAe220bC8db714F0202193726b46881B76", | ||
| }, | ||
| "mode_sepolia": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it be better to have the chain name keys as ChainType.MODE, ChainType.MODE_SEPOLIA, etc. for all, and also for CHAIN_NAME_TO_CHAIN_ID? To reduce the possibility of human error.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of course it would! This is some tech debt we have to deal with at some point. Feel free to open a new refactoring issue and reference your comment there.
| "service_registry": "0x5BA58970c2Ae16Cf6218783018100aF2dCcFc915", | ||
| "service_registry_token_utility": "0x10100e74b7F706222F8A7C0be9FC7Ae1717Ad8B2", | ||
| "service_manager_token": "0x7bedCA17D29e53C8062d10902a6219F8d1E3B9B5", | ||
| "operator_whitelist": "0x19936159B528C66750992C3cBcEd2e71cF4E4824", | ||
| "gnosis_safe_proxy_factory": "0x0a50009D55Ed5700ac8FF713709d5Ad5fa843896", | ||
| "gnosis_safe_same_address_multisig": "0x77290FF625fc576f465D0256F6a12Ce4480a5b8a", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need test chain config in full as well? Or it's just a legacy thing? If it's needed, I can deploy the rest of staking contracts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally the framework should provide the testnet option too.
But they are already deployed right? e.g.: 0x7bedCA17D29e53C8062d10902a6219F8d1E3B9B5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, now I see, you mean also the staking, etc. No, we will not need these for now.
No description provided.