Skip to content
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

Docs: Add JavaScript require statements for upgradeable smart contract via proxy in ignition docs #5835

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

wesleysmyth
Copy link

This includes JS require statements that were missing from the upgradeable smart contract ignition docs that are required for the code to execute properly.

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Oct 18, 2024

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: bf5614e

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

Copy link

vercel bot commented Oct 18, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
hardhat ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Nov 22, 2024 3:29pm

@@ -227,6 +227,9 @@ module.exports = demoModule;
Next it's time to upgrade our proxy to a new version. To do this, we'll create a new file within our `ignition/modules` directory called `UpgradeModule.js` (or `UpgradeModule.ts` if you're using TypeScript). Inside this file, we'll again break up our module into two parts. To start, we'll write our `UpgradeModule`:

```js
const { buildModule } = require("@nomicfoundation/hardhat-ignition/modules");
const proxyModule = require("./ProxyModule");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wesleysmyth it was assumed that a user would be able to infer this much on their own, however being explicit is not necessarily a bad thing. If we add these lines, then we also need a typescript version that uses import instead. You can look elsewhere in this file for a reference on what the formatting should look like.

@zoeyTM
Copy link
Contributor

zoeyTM commented Dec 3, 2024

Closing this as its been inactive for a bit and isn't strictly necessary to be merged. If the comment is addressed later we can reopen and merge.

@zoeyTM zoeyTM closed this Dec 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants