Solc check #62
Merged
Solc check #62
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #49
The solc and slither checks are pretty similar:
Right now, this means we compile contracts twice and have some code duplicated. I'd like to cut down on this, but want to think about the best way to do it. One approach is to have the solc check export a zip file, and have slither consume that zip file instead of re-compiling contracts.
However, I didn't do that right now are because it couples the two checks, and makes the ordering matter. Additionally we currently use a
Promise.allto execute proposal checks, which wouldn't work if the ordering of those two checks matters. Tracking this improvement in #63