Skip to content

Conversation

ypatil12
Copy link
Collaborator

@ypatil12 ypatil12 commented May 27, 2025

Motivation:

For clarity, let's deploy the SlashEscrow in initiateEscrow.

Modifications:

  1. In initiateEscrow , deploy the SlashEscrow if it hasn't been deployed
  2. Also add the startBlock, opSet to pending, and slashId to pending in this if block

Result:

No more counterfactual. Less redundant updates for multiple strategies in a slashID.

@ypatil12 ypatil12 merged commit 4709b11 into release-dev/redistribution May 27, 2025
10 checks passed
@ypatil12 ypatil12 deleted the feat/update-deploy-pattern branch May 27, 2025 20:18
0xClandestine pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 27, 2025
**Motivation:**

For clarity, let's deploy the `SlashEscrow` in `initiateEscrow`.

**Modifications:**

1. In `initiateEscrow `, deploy the `SlashEscrow` if it hasn't been
deployed
2. Also add the startBlock, opSet to pending, and slashId to pending in
this if block

**Result:**

No more counterfactual. Less redundant updates for multiple strategies
in a slashID.
0xClandestine pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 30, 2025
**Motivation:**

For clarity, let's deploy the `SlashEscrow` in `initiateEscrow`.

**Modifications:**

1. In `initiateEscrow `, deploy the `SlashEscrow` if it hasn't been
deployed
2. Also add the startBlock, opSet to pending, and slashId to pending in
this if block

**Result:**

No more counterfactual. Less redundant updates for multiple strategies
in a slashID.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants