Skip to content

docs: note that the prototypes do not build with the current public toolchain - #11

Open
memosr wants to merge 1 commit into
SeismicSystems:mainfrom
memosr:docs/known-toolchain-incompatibility
Open

docs: note that the prototypes do not build with the current public toolchain#11
memosr wants to merge 1 commit into
SeismicSystems:mainfrom
memosr:docs/known-toolchain-incompatibility

Conversation

@memosr

@memosr memosr commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Follow-up to #10, documentation only.

The README currently tells readers to cd into a prototype and run sforge test. That command fails on all five prototypes with the public toolchain: ssolc 0.8.31 rejects shielded types as mapping keys (Error 10109), and every prototype declares mapping(saddress => ...).

Verified against main HEAD:

$ grep -rn "mapping(saddress" --include=*.sol . | wc -l
17
$ grep -rl "mapping(saddress" --include=*.sol . | wc -l
8

CI builds sforge from a local checkout (SFOUNDRY_ROOT=/home/azureuser/prototypes/seismic-foundry), which is likely why this is not visible from the maintainer side.

This PR only records the current state and links the tracking issue. It does not touch any contract, and it does not presuppose any answer to the mapping-key design question in #10, which is still yours to make.

If you would rather fix the prototypes than document the breakage, I am happy to close this and open that PR instead once the team decides whether account-membership privacy is load-bearing here.

cc @ygd58, who reproduced the same failure independently.

…oolchain

The README tells readers to cd into a prototype and run `sforge test`, but
that command fails on all five prototypes with the public toolchain: ssolc
0.8.31 rejects shielded types as mapping keys (Error 10109), and every
prototype declares `mapping(saddress => ...)` (17 occurrences across 8 files).

CI builds sforge from a local checkout (SFOUNDRY_ROOT=/home/azureuser/...), so
the failure is not visible from the maintainer side.

This only documents the current state and links the tracking issue; it does not
touch any contract. The mapping-key question itself is a design decision for
the team (see SeismicSystems#10).
@ygd58

ygd58 commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Confirmed the diff matches what I verified independently - just the README note, no contract changes, and the counts (17 occurrences / 8 files) line up. Clean, low-risk fix that helps new clones fail loudly instead of silently. LGTM from my side.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants