You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
🧐 Motivation
In the UDC v2 we introduced a couple of breaking changes to make the standard easier to follow and more gas efficient. To avoid to much friction for tooling and contracts using v1, since v2 is not adopted yet, we should consider making these changes BC.
📝 Details
We had a unique param in v1 both received in the deploy_contract function and emitted in the ContractDeployed event. This was refactored to a from_zero field, which is semantically the negation of unique (since unique was meant to signalize when the deployment is not from the zero address). This can potentially be refactored into a semantically compatible name, that is more adequate than unique, like from_not_zero
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
🧐 Motivation
In the UDC v2 we introduced a couple of breaking changes to make the standard easier to follow and more gas efficient. To avoid to much friction for tooling and contracts using v1, since v2 is not adopted yet, we should consider making these changes BC.
📝 Details
We had a
unique
param in v1 both received in thedeploy_contract
function and emitted in the ContractDeployed event. This was refactored to afrom_zero
field, which is semantically the negation of unique (since unique was meant to signalize when the deployment is not from the zero address). This can potentially be refactored into a semantically compatible name, that is more adequate than unique, likefrom_not_zero
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: