feat: IProxy & Erc1967

[0xNeshi]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 31.16883% with 106 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.1%. Comparing base (51d3438) to head (7487cb2).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
contracts/src/proxy/erc1967/utils.rs	0.0%	71 Missing ⚠️
contracts/src/proxy/beacon/proxy.rs	0.0%	15 Missing ⚠️
contracts/src/proxy/erc1967/mod.rs	0.0%	10 Missing ⚠️
contracts/src/proxy/mod.rs	0.0%	10 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ntracts/src/token/erc721/extensions/consecutive.rs	95.7% <ø> (ø)
contracts/src/utils/storage_slot.rs	100.0% <100.0%> (+100.0%)	⬆️
contracts/src/proxy/erc1967/mod.rs	0.0% <0.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/proxy/mod.rs	0.0% <0.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/proxy/beacon/proxy.rs	0.0% <0.0%> (ø)
contracts/src/proxy/erc1967/utils.rs	0.0% <0.0%> (ø)

[0xNeshi]

This is a novel approach to implementing overridable contracts that I've been thinking about - we define the contract logic in the trait itself using default implementations. One other necessary component of the design is to access contract storage within the default fn impls through another ContractStorage trait.

I'll be creating a draft PR soon to see if my idea is even doable with the current SDK, but if it works, this would open numerous possibilities for us:

• support for overridable functions
• we can do meaningful super traits with no problems
• remove the need for passing base contract impls as function parameters (see Erc4626)
• we align perfectly with current trait-based inheritance model, while removing the need to reimplement every public function!

[bidzyyys]

Sounds interesting but I would not spend too much time on refactoring our codebase during M3. This milestone is too short, it would be better to bring more value (features).

[bidzyyys]

I like it!