- Basecamp docs improved;

apps/base-docs/base-camp/docs/advanced-functions/function-modifiers.md

@@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ For a production app, you'll want to use a more robust implementation of `onlyOw
 
 The address of the deployer of a contract is **not** included as an accessible property. To make it available, add it as a state variable and assign `msg.sender` in the `constructor`.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 contract Modifiers {
     address owner;
@@ -42,12 +46,20 @@ contract Modifiers {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br />
+
 ### Creating an `onlyOwner` Modifier
 
 [Modifiers] are very similar to functions and are declared with the `modifier` keyword. The modifier can run any Solidity code, including functions, and is allowed to modify state. Modifiers must have a special `_` character, which serves as a placeholder for where the code contained within the modified function will run.
 
 Create a simple `onlyOwner` modifier, which returns an `error` of `NotOwner` with the sending address if the sender is not the owner.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 error NotOwner(address _msgSender);
 ```
@@ -61,14 +73,26 @@ modifier onlyOwner {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 Test your `modifier` by adding a function that uses it:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 function iOwnThis() public view onlyOwner returns (string memory) {
     return "You own this!";
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 To test, deploy your contract and call the `iOwnThis` function. You should see the message "You own this!".
 
 Next, switch the _Account_, and try the function again. You should see an error in the console:

apps/base-docs/base-camp/docs/arrays/filtering-an-array-sbs.md

@@ -52,6 +52,10 @@ Go ahead and write it on your own. It needs to:
 
 You should end up with something like:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 function _countEvenNumbers() internal view returns(uint) {
     uint result = 0;
@@ -66,6 +70,10 @@ function _countEvenNumbers() internal view returns(uint) {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 The `_` in front of the function name is a practice used by some developers, in Solidity and in other languages, to indicate visually that this function is intended for internal use only.
 
 ### Returning Only Even Numbers
@@ -79,6 +87,10 @@ Finish the function on your own. It needs to:
 
 You should end up with something like:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 
 function getEvenNumbers() external view returns(uint[] memory) {
@@ -98,6 +110,10 @@ function getEvenNumbers() external view returns(uint[] memory) {
 
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 Did you catch the compiler warning about `view`? You aren't modifying state, so you should mark it as such.
 
 ### Testing the Function
@@ -116,6 +132,10 @@ Only one way to find out.
 
 Add a contract-level variable called `numEven`, and initialize it with **5**, the number of even numbers in the array. Modify `getEvenNumbers()` to use `numEven` instead of the `_countEvenNumbers()` function. It should now look like:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 function getEvenNumbers() external view returns(uint[] memory) {
     uint resultsLength = numEven; // <- Changed here
@@ -133,6 +153,10 @@ function getEvenNumbers() external view returns(uint[] memory) {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 Redeploy and test again. Success, the function now only costs about 57,484 gas to run! Except there is a catch. Remember, it's going to cost about 5000 gas to update `numEven` **each time** the array adds an even number.
 
 ### A More Realistic Accounting
@@ -148,6 +172,10 @@ uint numEven;
 
 Add a new function called `debugLoadArray` that takes a `uint` called `_number` as an argument, and fills the array by looping through `_numbers` times, pushing each number into the array. **For now, _don't_ update `numEven`**.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 function debugLoadArray(uint _number) external {
     for(uint i = 0; i < _number; i++) {
@@ -156,8 +184,16 @@ function debugLoadArray(uint _number) external {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 Test out the function by loading in **10** numbers. It costs about 249,610 gas to load the array. Now, add functionality to **also** increment `numEven` when the number added is even. We can't just calculate it, because although the numbers are sequential in the debug function, they might not be in real world use.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 function debugLoadArray(uint _number) external {
     for(uint i = 0; i < _number; i++) {
@@ -169,6 +205,10 @@ function debugLoadArray(uint _number) external {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 **Be sure to redeploy** and try again with **10** numbers. This time, the cost was about 275,335 gas. That's almost 26,000 more gas in an effort to save the 5,000 gas needed to run `_countEvenNumbers()`.
 
 ### Looking at the Big Picture

apps/base-docs/base-camp/docs/erc-20-token/erc-20-token-sbs.md

@@ -81,6 +81,10 @@ Redeploy. Without you needing to do anything, you should find that the `totalSup
 
 You can also use this to mint to other users. Go ahead and add the second and third accounts:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 constructor(string memory _name, string memory _symbol) ERC20(_name, _symbol) {
     _mint(msg.sender, 1 * 10**18);
@@ -89,6 +93,11 @@ constructor(string memory _name, string memory _symbol) ERC20(_name, _symbol) {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
+
 **Switch back** to the first account and redeploy. Test to confirm that each account has the appropriate amount of tokens.
 
 ### Testing the Transfer Function

apps/base-docs/base-camp/docs/erc-721-token/erc-721-sbs.md

@@ -30,6 +30,10 @@ JPGs may be all the rage right now but in the future, the selfie you post on soc
 
 Start by opening the [OpenZeppelin] ERC-721 in Github. Copy the link and use it to import the ERC-721 contract. Create your own contract, called `MyERC721`, that inherits from `ERC721Token`. Add a constructor that initializes the `_name` and `_symbol`.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
 
@@ -44,6 +48,10 @@ contract MyERC721Token is ERC721 {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 ### Minting NFTs
 
 The minting function that is provided by OpenZeppelin, `_safeMint`, is `internal`. To use it to let your customers mint NFTs, you'll need to implement a function in your contract that calls the one in the imported contract.
@@ -67,13 +75,21 @@ To implement ID generation, simply add a `uint` called `counter` to storage and
 
 Now, you can add a function called `redeemNFT` that calls `safeMint` using the `msg.sender` and `counter`, and then increments the `counter`:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 function redeemNFT() external {
     _safeMint(msg.sender, counter);
     counter++;
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 :::danger
 
 As a programmer, you've probably gone through great pains to internalize the idea of zero-indexing. Arrays start at 0. The pixel in the top-left corner of your screen is located at 0, 0.
@@ -148,6 +164,10 @@ The metadata for [BAYC] is [stored on IPFS], but some projects even use centrali
 
 Start by saving the IPFS metadata bases as constants, at the contract level. Add an enum to enable selection between these two choices, and an instance of that enum.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
     string constant BAYC = "https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeSjSinHpPnmXmspMjwiXyN6zS4E9zccariGR3jxcaWtq/";
     string constant DOODLES = "https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmPMc4tcBsMqLRuCQtPmPe84bpSjrC3Ky7t3JWuHXYB4aS/";
@@ -156,8 +176,16 @@ Start by saving the IPFS metadata bases as constants, at the contract level. Add
     NFTMetadata nftMetadata = NFTMetadata.BAYC;
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 Finally, add an override of `_baseURI` that returns the appropriate selection based on which collection is active, and a function to swap the URI.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
 ```solidity
 function _baseURI() internal override view returns(string memory) {
     if (nftMetadata == NFTMetadata.BAYC) {
@@ -175,6 +203,10 @@ function switchURI() public {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 Deploy, mint some NFTs, and call `tokenURI` to find the information for token number 1. You should get:
 
 ```text

apps/base-docs/base-camp/docs/error-triage/error-triage.md

@@ -43,13 +43,22 @@ TypeError: Type literal_string "One" is not implicitly convertible to expected t
 
 Fix by correcting the type or value, as appropriate for your needs:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
+
 ```solidity
 function compilerTypeErrorFixed() public pure returns (string) {
     string myNumber = "One";
     return myNumber;
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 ### Conversion Errors
 
 Conversion errors occur when you attempt to _implicitly_ convert one type to another. Solidity only allows this under very narrow circumstances where there is no possibility of ambiguous interpretation of the data.
@@ -74,6 +83,11 @@ TypeError: Return argument type int8 is not implicitly convertible to expected t
 
 Fix by explicitly casting as necessary:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
+
 ```solidity
 function compilerConversionErrorFixed() public pure returns (uint) {
     int8 first = 1;
@@ -82,6 +96,10 @@ function compilerConversionErrorFixed() public pure returns (uint) {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 :::tip
 
 You'll commonly need to use multiple conversions to bridge from one type to another.
@@ -124,6 +142,11 @@ TypeError: Type int8 is not implicitly convertible to expected type uint256.
 
 Resolve by explicitly converting to the final type:
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
+
 ```
 function compilerOperatorErrorFixed() public pure returns (uint) {
     int8 first = 1;
@@ -135,6 +158,10 @@ function compilerOperatorErrorFixed() public pure returns (uint) {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 ### Stack Depth Limit
 
 The [EVM stack] has 1024 slots, but only the top 16 slots are accessible. As a result, you can only have fewer than 16 variables in scope at one time.
@@ -195,6 +222,11 @@ CompilerError: Stack too deep. Try compiling with --via-ir (cli) or the equivale
 
 Resolve this error by breaking up large functions and separating operations into different levels of scope.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
+
 ```solidity
 function stackDepthLimitFixed() public pure returns (uint) {
     uint subtotalA;
@@ -241,6 +273,10 @@ function stackDepthLimitFixed() public pure returns (uint) {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 ---
 
 ## Logical Errors
@@ -385,6 +421,11 @@ In this case, the error type is `11`, for overflow/underflow outside of an `unch
 
 Fix by changing your code to handle the expected range of values.
 
+<details>
+
+<summary>Reveal code</summary>
+
+
 ```solidity
 function badSubstractionFixed() public pure returns (int) {
     int first = 1;
@@ -393,6 +434,10 @@ function badSubstractionFixed() public pure returns (int) {
 }
 ```
 
+</details>
+
+<br/>
+
 ### Divide by Zero
 
 Divide by zero errors also trigger a panic, with a code of `12`.