-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Raiden on Arbitrum: fix timeouts naming convention #1580
Comments
I agree with this, and I think we should take the time to do these refactoring before our next contracts deployment to Arbitrum. But I think this is more of an issue which needs to be tackled first in the contracts, instead of the client, and therefore should be moved there. |
My suggestion would be be I think we should take the time to do this renaming in #1573 , since that's handling exactly this change, so we avoid even polluting commit history with names that aren't descriptive. |
@andrevmatos and I have discussed this topic now and settled on a scheme. Thereby we ended up with calling these variables by the following concept:
|
As pointed in this and this comments, there's some confusion regarding the naming of timeouts in the Smart Contracts.
There are 2 concepts of time going around, one for absolute timestamp, and another one for number of seconds an event, and the names do not reflect it at all.
Refactor the contracts with better naming, and unifying names that should reflect the same thing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: