Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add ability to create clones with initial
value
in Clones.sol #4936Add ability to create clones with initial
value
in Clones.sol #4936Changes from 6 commits
c1d093d
1052cb1
6aab488
9618bcd
d0f9186
a41bc51
4676598
463ff75
132bccb
fcc327b
d2fcabf
e8eb625
3f820b2
27015a6
79c4c86
6942c46
524ccb6
f02beb7
64d394f
a24f2b2
528ebdc
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now that this accepts value, a factory may get locked if it doesn't accept ETH. Shall we add a note? @Amxx
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, this enables a couple of attack vectors:
I start to feel we didn't do this in the past because it's easy to fuck it up. We can still have the function, I just want to make sure we document the risks correctly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO, that is factory design, which is beyond the scope of this library. Most factory will not use value. Those that do need to take care of that.
IMO it's like Address library (that can do call with value) and TrustedForwarder (that can trigger that call). We don't have any warning in Address about the value issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, indeed, we don't have a warning in Address nor ERC2771Forwarder, but the main difference is the use case:
Although Clones is very similar to Address, it's more likely users will need to consider designing their factory in such a way that always has enough balance. Even though that's factory design, I think it makes sense to make a simple recommendation:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That warning is fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Though, 99% or devs won't ever use this library, and out of the 1% remining, 99% will not use value.
That leaves us with 0.01%, which is basically only @k06a. Unless he decides to not test/audit its code, I think nobody will ever need that warning :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah probably true 😂, but ideally we would get more experienced developers like @k06a in the long run.
Think that with the Account Abstraction trend, I'd expect more factories to deploy accounts, and therefore more developers requiring initial value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it'd be more generic to just call it
FailedCall
. However, I'm realizing that the main information this error provides is that it was a subcall that failed.I'd like to give a second thought to
FailedInnerCall
. Not sure ifInner
is the best. Would it make more sense to call itFailedSubCall
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FailedCall
,FailedInnerCall
andFailedSubCall
are all good to me. My favorite isFailedCall
, because simplicity ... but all are good honestly.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also like the symetry of
FailedCall
<>FailedDeployment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that this error is also emitted when the call that fails is actually a static call or a delegate call
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's do FailedCall, I think it covers the static and delegate call as well.