refactor(contracts): optimize code

[ctrlc03]

Description

Optimize code by using immutable variables are removing redundant code.

Confirmation

• I have read and understand MACI's contributor guidelines and code of conduct.
• I have read and understand MACI's GitHub processes.
• I have read and understand MACI's testing guide.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for maci-typedoc ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d39d384
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/maci-typedoc/deploys/65a1a7459fa3460008c5fe6c
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1008--maci-typedoc.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[0xmad]

@ctrlc03 thanks, just one question. Do we need to support the same state for deployed smart contracts? As far as I know, if someone tries to redeploy these contracts using proxies, it won't work because state if not the same.
In case if we don't care about it, I'm good with these changes.

[ctrlc03]

@ctrlc03 thanks, just one question. Do we need to support the same state for deployed smart contracts? As far as I know, if someone tries to redeploy these contracts using proxies, it won't work because state if not the same. In case if we don't care about it, I'm good with these changes.

Could you please expand on that? do you mean because of immutable parameters? if so, there's libraries for proxy clones with immutable args: https://github.com/wighawag/clones-with-immutable-args

[0xmad]

@ctrlc03 thanks, just one question. Do we need to support the same state for deployed smart contracts? As far as I know, if someone tries to redeploy these contracts using proxies, it won't work because state if not the same. In case if we don't care about it, I'm good with these changes.

Could you please expand on that? do you mean because of immutable parameters? if so, there's libraries for proxy clones with immutable args: https://github.com/wighawag/clones-with-immutable-args

I had some issues after adding immutable which causes storage layout change. But if it's not a case, let's leave it.

[ctrlc03]

@ctrlc03 thanks, just one question. Do we need to support the same state for deployed smart contracts? As far as I know, if someone tries to redeploy these contracts using proxies, it won't work because state if not the same. In case if we don't care about it, I'm good with these changes.

Could you please expand on that? do you mean because of immutable parameters? if so, there's libraries for proxy clones with immutable args: https://github.com/wighawag/clones-with-immutable-args

I had some issues after adding immutable which causes storage layout change. But if it's not a case, let's leave it.

issues when upgrading? I've not tried these contracts with any proxy pattern before tbf

[0xmad]

@ctrlc03 thanks, just one question. Do we need to support the same state for deployed smart contracts? As far as I know, if someone tries to redeploy these contracts using proxies, it won't work because state if not the same. In case if we don't care about it, I'm good with these changes.

Could you please expand on that? do you mean because of immutable parameters? if so, there's libraries for proxy clones with immutable args: https://github.com/wighawag/clones-with-immutable-args

I had some issues after adding immutable which causes storage layout change. But if it's not a case, let's leave it.

issues when upgrading? I've not tried these contracts with any proxy pattern before tbf

Yes, it's related to upgrades

[ctrlc03]

@ctrlc03 thanks, just one question. Do we need to support the same state for deployed smart contracts? As far as I know, if someone tries to redeploy these contracts using proxies, it won't work because state if not the same. In case if we don't care about it, I'm good with these changes.

Could you please expand on that? do you mean because of immutable parameters? if so, there's libraries for proxy clones with immutable args: https://github.com/wighawag/clones-with-immutable-args

I had some issues after adding immutable which causes storage layout change. But if it's not a case, let's leave it.

issues when upgrading? I've not tried these contracts with any proxy pattern before tbf

Yes, it's related to upgrades

oh that makes sense then! I don't think MACI as a protocol should use upgradable proxies, to enhance transparency. On the other hand, at some point we should definitely consider using clone proxies (or another efficient method) to deploy instances. What do you think?

[0xmad]

@ctrlc03 I think yes, at least we need to know community about that because someone else can use it with proxies and it can be a problem after upgrade with storage layout.
From our side, I think it will be useful to have something which helps to reduce gas for deployment or even better user can just use already deployed contracts.

[ctrlc03]

@ctrlc03 I think yes, at least we need to know community about that because someone else can use it with proxies and it can be a problem after upgrade with storage layout. From our side, I think it will be useful to have something which helps to reduce gas for deployment or even better user can just use already deployed contracts.

Definitely agree! Yes being able to use already deployed contracts and just point a proxy to it would be fantastic. Let's merge this after #949 ?

[0xmad]

@ctrlc03 sure, thanks!