Closed nlordell closed 2 months ago
For example, the 1.3.0 to 1.4.1 migration is named as such, and verifies that the singleton versions, both the original version and the new version, are correct.
I think it's named as such because versions < 1.3.0 had an in-built upgrade mechanism, therefore version 1.3.0 is the first version that requires to be migrated with a library contract.
and potentially only support migrating from 1.4.1 version
I don't see any issues upgrading from 1.3.0 to 1.5.0 that do not exist in 1.4.1 > 1.5.0 migration.
As discussed in planning meeting, we will not implement (see @mmv08's points above).
Context / issue
We should adopt a stricter migration contract naming scheme. For example, the 1.3.0 to 1.4.1 migration is named as such, and verifies that the singleton versions, both the original version and the new version, are correct. We should do the same for 1.5.0 migration contract (and potentially only support migrating from 1.4.1 version) to avoid any unexpected behaviour when coming from a different version.
Proposed solution
Check that the current singleton value is set to the 1.4.1 singleton for the corresponding network before changing it to a 1.5.0 Safe.
Alternatives
Leave it as is.