@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ Both operations contain:
|
||||
|
||||
* *Target*, the address of the smart contract that the timelock should operate on.
|
||||
* *Value*, in wei, that should be sent with the transaction. Most of the time this will be 0. Ether can be deposited before-end or passed along when executing the transaction.
|
||||
* *Data*, containing the encoded function selector and parameters of the call. This can be produced using a number of tools. For example, a maintenance operation granting role `ROLE` to `ACCOUNT` can be encode using web3js as follows:
|
||||
* *Data*, containing the encoded function selector and parameters of the call. This can be produced using a number of tools. For example, a maintenance operation granting role `ROLE` to `ACCOUNT` can be encoded using web3js as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
const data = timelock.contract.methods.grantRole(ROLE, ACCOUNT).encodeABI()
|
||||
|
||||
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ A different family of proxies are beacon proxies. This pattern, popularized by D
|
||||
- {BeaconProxy}: A proxy that retrieves its implementation from a beacon contract.
|
||||
- {UpgradeableBeacon}: A beacon contract with a built in admin that can upgrade the {BeaconProxy} pointing to it.
|
||||
|
||||
In this pattern, the proxy contract doesn't hold the implementation address in storage like an ERC1967 proxy, instead the address is stored in a separate beacon contract. The `upgrade` operations that are sent to the beacon instead of to the proxy contract, and all proxies that follow that beacon are automatically upgraded.
|
||||
In this pattern, the proxy contract doesn't hold the implementation address in storage like an ERC1967 proxy. Instead, the address is stored in a separate beacon contract. The `upgrade` operations are sent to the beacon instead of to the proxy contract, and all proxies that follow that beacon are automatically upgraded.
|
||||
|
||||
Outside the realm of upgradeability, proxies can also be useful to make cheap contract clones, such as those created by an on-chain factory contract that creates many instances of the same contract. These instances are designed to be both cheap to deploy, and cheap to call.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ Due to the way smart contract addresses are computed, and the fact that smart co
|
||||
|
||||
== Going further with access control
|
||||
|
||||
In previous example, we have both a `onlyOwner()` modifier and the `onlyCrossChainSender(owner)` mechanism. We didn't use the xref:access-control.adoc#ownership-and-ownable[`Ownable`] pattern because the ownership transfer mechanism in includes is not designed to work with the owner being a cross-chain entity. Unlike xref:access-control.adoc#ownership-and-ownable[`Ownable`], xref:access-control.adoc#role-based-access-control[`AccessControl`] is more effective at capturing the nuances and can effectivelly be used to build cross-chain-aware contracts.
|
||||
In previous example, we have both an `onlyOwner()` modifier and the `onlyCrossChainSender(owner)` mechanism. We didn't use the xref:access-control.adoc#ownership-and-ownable[`Ownable`] pattern because the ownership transfer mechanism in includes is not designed to work with the owner being a cross-chain entity. Unlike xref:access-control.adoc#ownership-and-ownable[`Ownable`], xref:access-control.adoc#role-based-access-control[`AccessControl`] is more effective at capturing the nuances and can effectivelly be used to build cross-chain-aware contracts.
|
||||
|
||||
Using xref:api:access.adoc#AccessControlCrossChain[`AccessControlCrossChain`] includes both the xref:api:access.adoc#AccessControl[`AccessControl`] core and the xref:api:crosschain.adoc#CrossChainEnabled[`CrossChainEnabled`] abstraction. It also includes some binding to make role management compatible with cross-chain operations.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user