Closed abhayks1 closed 4 years ago
PR addresses below points:
- Implementation of ERC20Gateway::proveCogateway
- Unit tests with proof data
Note: Method has been updated to ERC20Gateway.proveCogateway which is aligned with ConsensusCogateway.proveConsensusGateway method naming convention. https://github.com/mosaicdao/mosaic-1/blob/develop/contracts/consensus-gateway/ConsensusCogateway.sol#L189 It makes sense since here we are proving ERC20Cogateway contract. I have updated the same in the ticket comment.
Fixes #276
We can change the ConsensusCogateway::proveConsensusGateway
to ConsensusCogateway::proveGateway
instead of the proposed change, else you need to make separate services in the facilitator.
Also as we were discussing about moving the message bus and proveGateway function in to ERC20GatewayBase, at that time we can make the change related to ConsensusCogateway.
Also as we were discussing about moving the message bus and proveGateway function in to ERC20GatewayBase, at that time we can make the change related to ConsensusCogateway.
This will reduce lot of code duplication as proveGateway can be shared by ConsensusGateway/ConsensusCogateway/ERC20Gateway/ERC20Cogateway contracts 👍.
Available for review again 🍏
PR addresses below points:
Note: Method has been updated to ERC20Gateway.proveGateway which is aligned with ConsensusCogateway.proveConsensusGateway method naming convention. https://github.com/mosaicdao/mosaic-1/blob/develop/contracts/consensus-gateway/ConsensusCogateway.sol#L189 It makes sense since here we are proving ERC20Cogateway contract. I have updated the same in the ticket comment.
Fixes #276