Skip to content
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

Cleanup docs #87

Merged
merged 37 commits into from
Nov 7, 2023
Merged

Cleanup docs #87

merged 37 commits into from
Nov 7, 2023

Conversation

cam-schultz
Copy link
Contributor

Why this should be merged

Brings the Teleporter READMEs up-to-date with the latest implementation.
Also moves a handful of scripts from scripts/local/ to scripts/

geoff-vball
geoff-vball previously approved these changes Oct 29, 2023
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
* Requirements:
*
* - `message` must have been previously sent to the given destination chain ID.
* - `message` must have been previously sent to the given `destinationChainID`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should rename this to destinationBlockchainID, as per our other discussions of confusing this with the ethereum chainID.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

will echo this as DevRel brought it up too. They also suggsted possible avalancheChainID

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I definitely agree that we should rename these variables to destinationBlockchainID. Slight preference for that over destinationAvalancheChainID for verbosity.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

However, I think this is best suited for a standalone set of PRs, since it will require coordination on the awm-relayer side. Ticket: #95

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sgtm thanks for making the issues


Create a state variable of `ITeleporterMessenger` type called `teleporterMessenger`. Then we'll create a constructor for our contract that takes in an address where the Teleporter messenger would be deployed on this chain, and set our state variable with it.
Create a state variable of `ITeleporterMessenger` type called `teleporterMessenger`. Then create a constructor for our contract that takes in an address where the Teleporter messenger would be deployed on this chain, and set our state variable with it.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

above we have diferent capitalizatoin with "Teleporter Messenger protocol", how do we want to standardize this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My opinion is that we should always capitalize Teleporter and Teleporter Messenger, since they refer to distinct entities (the Teleporter protocol and the TeleporterMessenger contract)

@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ struct TeleporterFeeInfo {
}

/**
* @dev Interface that describes functionalities for a cross chain messenger.
* @dev Interface that describes functionalities for a cross-chain messenger implementing the Teleporter protcol.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we have some references to "Teleporter Messenger protocol", should unify these

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here I think just calling it Teleporter is more appropriate. "Teleporter Messenger" is an implementation of the Teleporter protocol. This interface is specifically tied to "Teleporter Messenger", but I think we should consider paring it back to conform only the Teleporter protocol. All the additional methods included in TeleporterMessenger.sol would be outside of the protocol.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do you think it makes sense that when we refer to "protocol" it refers to Teleporter protocol only? Like you said Teleporter Messenger is an implementation of the protocol, so in the READMEs we can remove all references to Teleproter Messenger as a protocol.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good call. Replaced "Teleporter Messenger protocol" with "Teleporter protocol" in a few places. Lmk if you spot any others.

cam-schultz and others added 16 commits November 6, 2023 10:50
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: F. Eugene Aumson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: cam-schultz <[email protected]>
Copy link

@minghinmatthewlam minghinmatthewlam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM thanks for cleaning up

Copy link
Contributor

@feuGeneA feuGeneA left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Requested one more small change here: #87 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor

@geoff-vball geoff-vball left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@cam-schultz cam-schultz merged commit f3449bc into main Nov 7, 2023
12 checks passed
@cam-schultz cam-schultz deleted the cleanup-docs branch November 7, 2023 14:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants