-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 347
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
fix linting #486
fix linting #486
Conversation
|
||
// Note that we don't save the deposited amount, as this is for the base token, which gets sent to the refundRecipient if the tx fails | ||
emit BridgehubDepositBaseTokenInitiated(_chainId, _prevMsgSender, _assetInfo, _amount); | ||
// We could use this data instead of the above | ||
// emit BridgehubMintData(bridgeMintData); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's probably a better way to use this data
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can emit the event in the L1StandardAsset, no? We could emit the data hash though. What do you recommend?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's more cohesive if we have events in sharedbridge, so we're indexing in 1 place
By the way, do we need to add l2Receiver in L1NTV?
I would actually not create any variable in memory to make the call more efficient.
If we have everything we need, then just suppress the other linting error (unused return value)
Co-authored-by: Raid Ateir <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: kelemeno <[email protected]>
What ❔
Why ❔
Checklist