Closed
Conversation
Barichek
approved these changes
Jun 22, 2023
Member
|
So is this branch meant for chiado only, or this should also represent the cannonical contract? I the latter, please open against the main branch #45 |
Member
|
While a cleaner approach than #46 I'm still against this #46 (comment) |
Author
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR follows #46 changes and addresses gap approach to make
SBCDepositContractimplementation follow previous version storage layout to prevent possible storage collisions.Gap of 5 slots
67-71inclusively added to cover slots occupied by previous contract version.Changes: