MINT prototype #209
MINT prototype #209
Conversation
contracts/minting/Controller.sol
Outdated
| */ | ||
| function configureController(address _controller, address _minter) onlyOwner public returns (bool) { | ||
| controllers[_controller] = _minter; | ||
| emit ControllerConfigured(_controller, _minter); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we remove references to _minter and replace with something more generic? I assume you are thinking that we will use the generic Controller as a base class for other kinds of controllers we may write (blacklister, pauser, etc)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. Changed _minter to _worker everywhere and updated comments inside Controller.sol. All other files are unaffected since these are just arguments to functions/events.
contracts/minting/MintController.sol
Outdated
| import 'openzeppelin-solidity/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol'; | ||
|
|
||
| // make an interface instead of including FiatTokenV1 since | ||
| // FiatTokenV1 will include a different impl of Ownable |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment is out of date now? Controller uses the same Ownable, right?
Probably still worth having the interface considering P1 or P2 features which will need it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
changing comment.
contracts/minting/MintController.sol
Outdated
| return internal_setMinterAllowance(minter, newAllowance); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function incrementMinterAllowance(uint256 allowanceIncrement) onlyController public returns (bool) { |
contracts/minting/MintController.sol
Outdated
| MintableTokenInterface public token; | ||
|
|
||
| event TokenSet(address indexed oldToken, address indexed newToken); | ||
| event MinterModified(address indexed msgSender, address indexed minter); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This event is emitted for remove/configure/increment, but nothing records which operation was done. I know we could look at what other events were emitted by the actual token contract to figure it out, but would it be easier if MintController emitted different events for each of those operations?
MinterIncrement would have the most value as we could log the increment value, whereas the token will only log what the allowance was set to. The other two do seem duplicative of what the token logs.
Prototype for MINT P0.
contracts/minting: p0 contracts Controller, MintController, and MasterMinter
test/minting: Sample unit tests for p0 contracts
* AccountUtils.js is the unit test framework
* ControllerUtils.js framework for testing contracts that inherit from Controller
* MintControllerUtils.js framework for testing contracts that inherit from MintController.
* MintControllerTests.js two sample unit tests that use the new framework
contracts/experimental: prototypes for p1 and p2
test/experimental: sample unit tests for p1 and p2