-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 244
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
dev: do all call restriction checks (only owner etc.) in contracts #1094
Comments
7 tasks
Do you mind assigning it to me ? |
Hi, can I try this one? |
@stevencartavia how are things going? |
I am still figuring out some things |
1 task
enitrat
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 7, 2024
<!--- Please provide a general summary of your changes in the title above --> <!-- Give an estimate of the time you spent on this PR in terms of work days. Did you spend 0.5 days on this PR or rather 2 days? --> Time spent on this PR: 0.7 days ## Pull request type <!-- Please try to limit your pull request to one type, submit multiple pull requests if needed. --> Please check the type of change your PR introduces: - [x] Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes) ## What is the current behavior? <!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, or link to a relevant issue. --> Resolves #<Issue number> #1094 ## What is the new behavior? <!-- Please describe the behavior or changes that are being added by this PR. --> all call restriction checks (only owner etc.) in contracts <!-- Reviewable:start --> - - - This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/kkrt-labs/kakarot/1179) <!-- Reviewable:end --> --------- Co-authored-by: enitrat <msaug@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: Clément Walter <clement0walter@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In a lot of places, we currently do in the contract
and in the associated library
The check
Ownable.assert_only_owner();
shouldn't be in the library because it belongs to a contract logic (who is the caller) and not a library logic (what is the function actually doing).This issue is consequently about moving all these checks (not only only_owner but similar semantic) at the contract level
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: