Clarify SuperchainERC20 supply considerations#1051
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-optimism ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
WalkthroughThe pull request updates the documentation for Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
🧰 Additional context used🪛 LanguageToolwords.txt[duplication] ~1-~1: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt (GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE) 🔇 Additional comments (2)words.txt (2)
The addition of lowercase "zora" complements the existing "Zora" entry, following the established pattern of maintaining multiple cases. Let's confirm the usage context: ✅ Verification successfulLet me gather more context about the word list patterns to make a proper assessment. The lowercase "zora" addition is consistent with the codebase patterns The verification shows that maintaining both uppercase and lowercase variants is a common pattern in the words list, with numerous examples like "Zora/zora", "Merkle/merkle", "Sepolia/sepolia", etc. This pattern serves different use cases, as evidenced by the codebase using "Zora" in type definitions and object properties. 🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage context of "zora" vs "Zora"
# Expected: Find both uppercase and lowercase usages in appropriate contexts
echo "Checking zora/Zora usage patterns:"
rg -i "\bzora\b" --type md --type ts --type js
Length of output: 336 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Check the pattern of casing in words.txt
echo "Checking words.txt for casing patterns:"
grep -B5 -A5 -i "zora" words.txt
# Check if there are other similar pairs of same word with different cases
echo -e "\nChecking for other case pairs in words.txt:"
awk 'BEGIN{IGNORECASE=1} {
word=tolower($0)
count[word]++
words[word]=words[word] " " $0
} END{
for(w in count) {
if(count[w]>1) print words[w]
}
}' words.txt
Length of output: 2715
The file maintains both uppercase and lowercase versions of certain terms (e.g., ACCOUNTQUEUE/accountqueue). This pattern appears intentional for supporting different use cases. Let's confirm this pattern is consistent across the codebase: ✅ Verification successfulCase variations in words.txt are intentionally maintained Looking at the complete words.txt file, I can confirm that maintaining both uppercase and lowercase versions of terms follows an established pattern in the dictionary. This is evidenced by multiple similar pairs such as:
While we didn't find direct usage of these terms in the codebase's MD/JS/TS files, the consistent pattern of case variations throughout the dictionary suggests this is an intentional design choice to support different documentation or code contexts where case sensitivity matters. 🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of case variations in the codebase
# Expected: Find both uppercase and lowercase usages
# Check for uppercase and lowercase usage patterns
echo "Checking ACCOUNTQUEUE/accountqueue usage:"
rg -i "accountqueue" --type md --type ts --type js
echo "Checking ACCOUNTSLOTS/accountslots usage:"
rg -i "accountslots" --type md --type ts --type js
Length of output: 287 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to understand the context and usage of these terms
# First, let's see all the words in the words.txt file
echo "Content of words.txt:"
cat words.txt
# Then, let's search for any queue-related terms to understand the pattern
echo -e "\nSearching for queue-related terms:"
rg -i "queue" --type md --type ts --type js
# Also search for slots-related terms
echo -e "\nSearching for slots-related terms:"
rg -i "slots" --type md --type ts --type js
# Check if there are other similar uppercase/lowercase pairs in words.txt
echo -e "\nChecking for other case-paired words:"
cat words.txt | sort | uniq -d -i
Length of output: 4389 🧰 Tools🪛 LanguageTool[duplication] ~1-~1: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt (GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE) [duplication] ~2-~2: Möglicher Tippfehler: ein Wort wird wiederholt (GERMAN_WORD_REPEAT_RULE) Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
pages/stack/interop/superchain-erc20.mdx (1)
31-32: Improve clarity and documentation style.Consider this revision for better clarity and documentation standards:
-An important thing to note is using `crosschainBurn` and `crosschainMint` on the `SuperchainERC20` to move your asset across the Superchain only affects which chain your asset is located on and does not change the overall supply of the token. This keeps the token's total amount the same across all networks, ensuring its value stays stable during the move and that the `SuperchainERC20` retains a unified, global supply count. +Using `crosschainBurn` and `crosschainMint` on the `SuperchainERC20` to move assets across the Superchain only affects the asset location and does not change the overall token supply. The total amount remains constant across all networks, ensuring stable value during transfers while maintaining a unified, global supply count.Changes:
- Removed unnecessary introductory phrase
- Improved conciseness
- Eliminated contractions and possessives
- Maintained technical accuracy while simplifying the explanation
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[warning] 31-31:
Blocked character found: (’) at index 165
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
pages/stack/interop/superchain-erc20.mdx(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
pages/stack/interop/superchain-erc20.mdx (1)
Pattern **/*.mdx: "ALWAYS review Markdown content THOROUGHLY with the following criteria:
- Use proper nouns in place of personal pronouns like 'We' and 'Our' to maintain consistency in communal documentation.
- Avoid gender-specific language and use the imperative form.
- Monitor capitalization for emphasis. Avoid using all caps, italics, or bold for emphasis.
- Ensure proper nouns are capitalized in sentences.
- Apply the Oxford comma.
- Use proper title case for buttons, tab names, page names, and links. Sentence case should be used for body content and short phrases, even in links.
- Use correct spelling and grammar at all times (IMPORTANT).
- For H1, H2, and H3 headers:
- Use sentence case, capitalizing only the first word.
- Preserve the capitalization of proper nouns, technical terms, and acronyms as defined in the 'nouns.txt' file located in the root directory of the project.
- Do not automatically lowercase words that appear in the 'nouns.txt' file, regardless of their position in the header.
- Flag any headers that seem to inconsistently apply these rules for manual review.
- When reviewing capitalization, always refer to the 'nouns.txt' file for the correct capitalization of proper nouns and technical terms specific to the project.
"
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
pages/stack/interop/superchain-erc20.mdx
[warning] 31-31:
Blocked character found: (’) at index 165
🔇 Additional comments (1)
pages/stack/interop/superchain-erc20.mdx (1)
31-31: LGTM! Technical content is accurate.
The explanation correctly clarifies that cross-chain operations don't affect the total token supply, which aligns with the PR objectives.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[warning] 31-31:
Blocked character found: (’) at index 165
|
@bradleycamacho I've just fixed the lint markdown issue, you can merge. |
5 participants
Clarifies that supply is never affected by moving assets across the Superchain