update: add optimism and optimism-sepolia addresses for BTREE token

[DonLuv]

Description
Add optimism and optimism-sepolia addresses for BTREE token

Tests

Additional context

Metadata

[wiz-inc-a178a98b5d]

Wiz Scan Summary

Scanner	Findings
Vulnerabilities
Sensitive Data	1
Secrets
IaC Misconfigurations
Total	1

View scan details in Wiz

To detect these findings earlier in the dev lifecycle, try using Wiz Code VS Code Extension.

[DonLuv]

Not sure why the validate-workflow failed. Let me know if something is malformed in the json or some such, but looks good to me? Leaving the PR here pending feedback in case the CI pipeline is flaky and just needs a kick/re-run or something

[DonLuv]

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of this output from the CI test failing. Not very revealing, but perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong place? @wbnns any advice? Sorry, I know the readme says checks need to pass before a review will be done, but a little unsure what the issue is here:

Decided to run the validation locally to see if I could see what's wrong, and came up with this, but ignore me if I'm going down the wrong path:

used the 'validate' script in the package.json:

ethereum-optimism.github.io/package.json

Line 37 in d1e55c7

"validate": "tsx ./bin/cli.ts validate",

with the same args as the ci seems to be using --datadir ./data --tokens BTREE/
gets to here in the validate.ts file:

ethereum-optimism.github.io/src/validate.ts

Line 45 in d1e55c7

const folders = fs

which seems not to match on BTREE/, so const folders is an empty list.

if I use BTREE as the arg instead of BTREE/ it matches so const folders isn't empty, but still fails to validate at the end.

Checked the validate.ts cli.ts .circleci/config.yaml and package.json with git blame to see if anything that looked relevant had changed recently, but couldn't see anything that likely would've caused an issue.

Note: I did also try running the generate:ci script first, as it seemed like validate might depend on it. Also, I get this same error when locally reverting my data.json file to not include the changes in this PR, which would make the branch the same as what's already in master, so I may have just overlooked something in my attempt to solve

[tremarkley]

@DonLuv do you mind rebasing your branch onto the latest version of the repo? there was a bug in the validate script that was fixed with this PR and it looks like your forked repo does not contain the fix: #1144

[DonLuv]

Thanks for the reply! Sure, I'll do that. Will @ you once done

[DonLuv]

@tremarkley thanks for the feedback! merged instead of rebased, but seems fixed 😄

Apologies if I came off grouchy in my discussion created on the feedback board. I know y'all must be busy, and appreciate the work open source contributors like yourself and @wbnns do. Was just trying to get a resolution. More PRs for same token to more optimism chains incoming 😄