FIP-55: PCV Guardian #353
FIP-55: PCV Guardian #353
Conversation
| SetupUpgradeFunc, | ||
| TeardownUpgradeFunc, | ||
| ValidateUpgradeFunc | ||
| } from '../../types/types'; |
|
@Joeysantoro I think we should add in a check when withdrawing to a safe address other than the DAOTimelock that the source and destination underlying token is the same. Otherwise, we could accidentally burn tokens by transferring them into a pcv deposit that can't handle them. |
|
Also there's an e2e test on this that is failing that I'd like to see fixed before approving. |
We shouldn't be able to burn tokens this way, because deposits have a |
Interesting. I think we need to sync on this because at a glance its a good idea but it removes the flexibility to rely on withdrawERC20. I think we should put this check inside the |
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| export const validate: ValidateUpgradeFunc = async (addresses, oldContracts, contracts) => { | ||
| const pcvGuardian: PCVGuardian = contracts.pcvGuardian as PCVGuardian; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We shouldn't need to cast to type of PCVGuardian as the artifact that is loaded from contracts should be correct.
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(await contracts.rariPool8FeiPCVDeposit.paused()).to.be.true; | ||
| expect(await contracts.fei.balanceOf(contractAddresses.feiDAOTimelock)).to.be.bignumber.equal( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should add test to see delta between starting and ending balance.
https://tribe.fei.money/t/fip-55-pcv-guardian/3744
TODO