-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
feat(accounts): Add TxCompat field – implement Tx integration (part 1) #18969
Conversation
WalkthroughThe Cosmos blockchain has updated its account abstraction layer, integrating transaction compatibility features and refining error handling. A new message type, Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
@testinginprod your pull request is missing a changelog! |
@@ -103,5 +100,15 @@ func (m msgServer) Execute(ctx context.Context, execute *v1.MsgExecute) (*v1.Msg | |||
} | |||
|
|||
func (m msgServer) ExecuteBundle(ctx context.Context, req *v1.MsgExecuteBundle) (*v1.MsgExecuteBundleResponse, error) { | |||
return nil, status.Error(codes.Unimplemented, "not implemented") | |||
_, err := m.k.addressCodec.StringToBytes(req.Bundler) |
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: this is not related to the PR but I just saw the MsgServer logic was missing (probably got nuked in a merge).
|
||
var mockSignature = &codectypes.Any{TypeUrl: "signature", Value: []byte("signature")} | ||
|
||
func setupApp(t *testing.T) *simapp.SimApp { |
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.
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.
LGTM. A single question, why can't we use the existing Tx/TxRaw or SignDoc for TxCompat?
to avoid the dependency. The idea is that:
So we need to retrofit some TX fileds into the user op. The main reason for having authinfo bytes and tx body bytes is not to need to re-encode things otherwise we might have discrepancies in the signature. (EG clients encode auth in some bytes and the state machine encodes them in a different way). Unluckily it's a limitation of protobuf encoding. |
…1) (cosmos#18969) Co-authored-by: unknown unknown <unknown@unknown>
Description
This is one of the multiple PRs required to allow x/accounts authentication and execution logic to be invoked when no bundler is involved.
In fact when a user which owns an abstracted account is trying to send a TX, the TX is converted into a UserOperation,
such that authentication and execution flow of the TX are taken over by the AA implementation.
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!
in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.md
Reviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...