Skip to content

[Do Not Merge] POC using accessor interface with ccip reader. #845

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

winder
Copy link
Contributor

@winder winder commented Apr 15, 2025

This is a POC to see what ccip.go might look like if it were implemented with the accessor interface instead of managing queries directly.


// offRampStaticChainConfig is used to parse the response from the offRamp contract's getStaticConfig method.
// See: <chainlink repo>/contracts/src/v0.8/ccip/offRamp/OffRamp.sol:StaticConfig
type offRampStaticChainConfig struct {
Copy link
Collaborator

@huangzhen1997 huangzhen1997 May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are we removing those configs ? Maybe move them to ccip_interface.go ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is the onchain representation of these config types. The protocol representation of them is OfframpConfig.

Types like this are what I'm referring to when I talk about "dynamic typing". In theory you could use the EVM gobindings instead of re-defining the types here, but that would break the dependency hierarchy unless you define the CAL implementations as part of the capability in the chainlink repo.

@huangzhen1997
Copy link
Collaborator

FYI I forked your branch here, and tried to experiment implementing the new interface with existing cr/cw

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.

2 participants