Track ERC2309 compliant ERC721s

[alephao]

Track ERC2309 compliant ERC721s

[alephao]

Hi @ernestognw,

I wasn't familiar with this ERC, I just finished reading it and checked the links you sent.

Right now my best approach is to add an alternative test_deploy with the consecutive minting for ERC2309-compliant tokens, but I wanted to open a discussion before sending the PR.

I agree. I also don't think it's worth it doing a _mintConsecutive benchmark outside of the constructor because it seem like it is not supposed to be used outside of it since it breaks the ERC721 standard like you mentioned. So if we're doing just the constructor benchmark, we can add a table below the deploy table, maybe something like:

How much gas to deploy the ERC2309 compliant contracts when minting N tokens in the constructor?

Implementation	1	100	1000	10000
ERC721A	1000	2000	3000	4000
OpenZeppelin Consecutive	1000	2000	3000	4000

---

However, it fails because the _mintConsecutive(to, amount) is called outside the constructor, and I don't see an easy workaround.

For the tests we can have a mock that calls the _mintConsecutive in the constructor e.g:

// ... imports
contract ERC721_OZConsecutive is ERC721Consecutive {
    constructor(uint96 amount) ERC721("Name", "Sy") {
        // Passing any random address so we don't have to do it in the test functions
        _mintConsecutive(0x1000000000000000000000000000000000000000, amount);
    }
}

then for the test functions we just create a new instance of that mock contract and pass the amount

// ...imports
contract ERC721_OZConsecutive_deploy_Test is ERC721Consecutive {
    function test_deploy_1() public {
        ERC721OZConsecutive sut = new ERC721OZConsecutive(1)
    }

    function test_deploy_1000() public {
        ERC721OZConsecutive sut = new ERC721OZConsecutive(1000)
    }
  
   // ...
}

Le me know what you think!

[ernestognw]

Thank you very much @alephao, your explanation was really helpful. I started doing some experiments with what you suggested and I just sent a new PR including the ERC721-ERC2309 variations and updated the docs and scripts.

I have the feeling that is kinda complicated to follow the instructions for ERC2309 tokens, but I don't think it should be thought as a new variation (separated from ERC721). From your examples I assume you'd think the same.

Let me know your thoughts :D