Richard Meissner
Richard Meissner
Totally makes sense to merge this, but I was wondering if this bug is triggered by the Safe code. We do have tests that call this code and it works...
Note: it seems the repo is not properly setup for external migrations, I will look into this
We are currently in the progress of migrating repositories and organisations. And as this is not security critical we didn't give it any priority. Are there any external dependencies that...
With dependencies I meant if there is a project that is depending on this PR being merged ;) I will try to get this done as soon we are are...
Could you rebase this PR too, then the test will run :)
Yes this is currently expected. The reason is that these contracts use immutables, which are not fully supported by the used script. Sourcify actually faces a similar issue, therefore I...
To make sure that everything went as expected to can check that the address that the contract was deployed to corresponds to the address in the safe-deployments repo: https://github.com/gnosis/safe-deployments/tree/main/src/assets/v1.3.0 Edit:...
According to your log they are deployed. This is just an additional step, it doesn't have an impact on the deployment itself. Edit: the chain id error just says that...
These are not the addresses we would expect. Which commitndidnyou deploy? It is important to use the version tagged with `1.3.0`?
As mentioned in the readme it is important to use a tagged commit else you will get different addresses and small unaudited changed. The tag would be https://github.com/gnosis/safe-contracts/tree/v1.3.0