Working contract verification script to verify individual contracts post-deployment

[derekpierre]

Type of PR:

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Documentation
• Other

Required reviews:

• 1
• 2
• 3

What this does:
NOTE

• Contract verification can only work with changes related to the two issues filed with ape
  • Name clash with local folder and dependency causes contract verification issue ApeWorX/ape-solidity#153 - already addressed in ape-solidity 0.8.4
  • Constructor arguments not correctly extracted/determined from bytecode during contract verification ApeWorX/ape-etherscan#150 - I'm using the flimsy solution described in this issue and summarized below

For ape-etherscan, I implemented a flimsy workaround for now, derekpierre/ape-etherscan@f68365a, related to what I read here, https://mirror.xyz/n00b21337.eth/4HDSO5tlP3-_CAKUgT5QgQ4iIJZ7RH46zucebjycoN8 (it's pretty flimsy! 😟 ) , and added a github dependency to my fork. Once the ape folks provide a proper fix, we can switch back to their released version.

---

• Modified verify script to verify contracts post-deployment. If the deployed contract was proxied, the underlying implementation contract is verified.
• Relocked dependencies to use ape-solidity 0.8.4 and my workaround for the ape-etherscan issue (explained below).

Example usage:

• Verify Coordinator contract (proxied) deployed on tapir and contract info included in tapir.json contract registry

$ ape run verify --contract-name Coordinator --domain tapir --network polygon:amoy:infura

• Verify ReimbursementPool contract deployed on mainnet and contract info not included in mainnet.json but rather in a separate registry file

$ ape run verify --contract-name ReimbursementPool --registry-filepath ./deployment/artifacts/reimbursement-mainnet.json --network polygon:mainnet:infura 

Issues fixed/closed:

• Fixes #...

Why it's needed:

Explain how this PR fits in the greater context of the NuCypher Network.
E.g., if this PR address a nucypher/productdev issue, let reviewers know!

Notes for reviewers:

What should reviewers focus on?
Is there a particular commit/function/section of your PR that requires more attention from reviewers?

Are we ok having this github dependency for modified ape-etherscan in main? The upside is that if this PR is merged then anyone can do post-deployment contract verification.
-> Filed #331 to replace the dependency once the fix is available

I still wouldn't integrate verification with deployment just yet; better to continue to verify contracts separately, post-deployment since the workaround is so flimsy.

[manumonti]

LGTM 👌 Great work here!

IMHO it's ok to have this github dependency modified. To have verification working can save a lot of time and efforts when we are deploying new contracts, especially now that we are updating/deploying contracts very frequently.