Skip to content

Conversation

@LHerskind
Copy link

closes #18

…utdown

- Update IStakedTokenV3 interface
- Remove modifier from slashing actions
- Let cooldown admin be only caller to `setEmergencyShutdown`

contract StakeTokenUpgradeProposalExecutor {
// TODO: Replace with constant address when implementation is deployed
address immutable NEW_STAKED_AAVE_TOKEN_IMPLEMENTATION;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems clearer to fix the address here directly (instead of using the constructor)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will be fixed when we have an implementation that is deployed.
Using the constructor for passing freshly deployed implementation made testing easier.

IBaseAdminUpgradabilityProxy(0x4da27a545c0c5B758a6BA100e3a049001de870f5);

function execute() external {
STAKED_AAVE_TOKEN_PROXY.upgradeTo(NEW_STAKED_AAVE_TOKEN_IMPLEMENTATION);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you should initialize, so upgradeToAndCall

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. Is updated in the newest commit.

}

function setEmergencyShutdown(bool emergencyShutdown) external override onlyCooldownAdmin {
_emergencyShutdown = emergencyShutdown;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

does it make sense to check that the current _emergencyShutdown status != the input emergencyShutdown

As is, you could have a EmergencyShutdownChanged event from true to true. A lot would have to go wrong in the gov process to end up with that, but could be added to avoid events that don't make sense.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't think so. We allow writing the same value to state for other configurations in pool etc, so think it is fine to keep the consistency here to also allow "rewriting" the same value.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants