Thanks, @njgheorghita and @chriseth!
If I followed the development of the ethpm standard correctly over the years, this scenario is still supported by the current standard, just that the same manifest format is used for both: a more "source-oriented" manifest as well as a "deployment" manifest. Example:
The problem (or inconvenience) I see is that the deployment manifest would need its own name or version, right? Project X would basically take the published package A (v1.2.0) and create a manifest for their deployment on their particular chain and have to call it package A (v1.2.1) or rename the package. Even though the original package has not changed, a new manifest with new name and version number is needed, just to include the deployed addresses of that package.
If my understanding here is incorrect, I'd appreciate a pointer. Coming from an enterprise background and with permissioned EVM chains being more wide-spread now, I've struggled to understand how exactly this scenario would look like.
Ultimately, the spec is designed to be as flexible as possible, to suit any use case. In version 3, we no longer strictly require that every package contains a
version. However, it’s suggested since those are useful identifiers. But, it’s perfectly reasonable to release a manifest json that doesn’t contain
version fields onto any registry under any given
However, I’m a little confused by this sentance
Even though the original package has not changed, a new manifest with new name and version number is needed, just to include the deployed addresses of that package.. If you are adding deployments (addresses, txhashes, etc..) to a “source” package, isn’t this inherently more than just adding a new name and version, and wouldn’t you anyways want a new name and version to identify the newly added deployments? But, maybe I’m not understanding your use case exactly...
phew, this is a hefty piece of a document…
it certainly is! many thanks to you and bryant for the reviews!
WEB3_INFURA_PROJECT_ID. More details on how to can be found here: https://web3py.readthedocs.io/en/stable/quickstart.html?highlight=infura#provider-infura
Last Call. The spec is currently sitting in
Review. There’s an open question on the eth-magicians forum about whether a
Checksumshould be required for in-lined sources. Once that’s resolved, I feel safe moving onto
Last Call(finally :sweat_smile: ). Do you happen to remember why we settled on this requirement during the Solidity Summit sessions?