OpenZeppelin / OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts
About proxyAdmin for TransparentUpgradeableProxy.sol
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Solidity
- Stars
- 27.2k
- Forks
- 12.4k
- Avg merge
- 2d 19h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 33
Description
🧐 Motivation
My concern is whether it is reasonable to forcibly generate a new ProxyAdmin in the constructor of TransparentUpgradeableProxy.sol:
constructor(address _logic, address initialOwner, bytes memory _data) payable ERC1967Proxy(_logic, _data) {
_admin = address(new ProxyAdmin(initialOwner));
// Set the storage value and emit an event for ERC-1967 compatibility
ERC1967Utils.changeAdmin(_proxyAdmin());
}
If I want to use a TimelockController as the ProxyAdmin, it becomes very difficult. The contract's extensibility seems to be reduced.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with contracts/proxy/transparent/TransparentUpgradeableProxy.sol and read the constructor and ProxyAdmin creation shown in the issue. Determine whether using an existing TimelockController as the ProxyAdmin should be supported, and define the intended API or documented limitation before proposing a change.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- solidity
- Domain
- blockchain
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100