smartcontractkit / smartcontractkit/documentation
[Enhancement]: <Chainlink local documentation issue>
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- MDX
- Stars
- 526
- Forks
- 478
- Avg merge
- 1d 9h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 75
Description
What would you like us to improve?
Hi Chainlink team,
I noticed a possible error in the CCT - getCCIPAdmin() token with Burn and Mint Pool in forked environments documentation:
https://docs.chain.link/chainlink-local/build/ccip/foundry/cct-burn-and-mint-fork
In Step 13 (Configure Token Pool on Ethereum Sepolia), the documentation currently has:
bytes[] memory remotePoolAddressesEthSepolia = new bytes;
remotePoolAddressesEthSepolia[0] = abi.encode(address(burnMintTokenPoolEthSepolia));
However, the remoteChainSelector is:
remoteChainSelector: baseSepoliaNetworkDetails.chainSelector,
Since the current pool is the Ethereum Sepolia pool and the remote chain is Base Sepolia, I believe the remote pool address should be the Base Sepolia pool:
bytes[] memory remotePoolAddressesBaseSepolia = new bytes;
remotePoolAddressesBaseSepolia[0] =
abi.encode(address(burnMintTokenPoolBaseSepolia));
Step 14 correctly uses burnMintTokenPoolEthSepolia as the remote pool when configuring the Base Sepolia pool, which seems to confirm that Step 13 contains a copy/paste error.
I am reporting this because developers following the tutorial may become confused or stuck at this step.
Thank you!
How important it is?
High
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
Open the linked Chainlink Local documentation page and inspect Steps 13 and 14, focusing on the pool address variables and remote chain selectors. Verify the reported mismatch against the surrounding forked-environment example, then update the Step 13 snippet and preview the page to confirm the tutorial is consistent.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- solidity
- Domain
- blockchain, documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 1/5
- Estimated time
- Under an hour
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 92/100