validation: decouple GasToken tests #803
Conversation
bitwiseguy
force-pushed
the
ss/refactor-gas-token
branch
from
7552640 to
b2549f3
Compare
validation/gas_token.go
Outdated
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| isCustomGasToken, err = getBool("isCustomGasToken()", superchain.Addresses[chain.ChainID].SystemConfigProxy, l2Client) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this use an l1Client?
I'd like us to revisit the "reverting is acceptable" case b/c it seems like it could be hiding many skeletons like this one. Can we double check it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea this should be an l1Client. Good catch. What are the pre/post comments referring to? Pre-what? Those comments were just copied from existing code
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think what this is trying to do is to cope with deployments of the SystemConfig which don't expose the isCustomGasToken() method. This would indicate they don't support custom gas tokens and therefore should automatically pass the test. A better approach would be to read the semver here, and unless it is greater than or equal to some version (which we would need to look up or ask someone for) we don't do the rest of the check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe there is a semver for the SystemConfigProxy we could check?
If its < a certain value, we don't make the following calls at all (because the method doesn't exist?):
- SystemConfigProxy.isCustomGasToken()
- L1BlockPredeploy.isCustomGasToken()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Discussed some findings on semver in this discord thread. Not sure how to proceed at the moment. The isCustomGasToken() method seems to be missing on the latest standard version of the SystemConfig contract
validation/gas_token.go
Outdated
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func CheckGasToken(chain *superchain.ChainConfig, l1Client EthClient) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did we add a unit test for this yet? That is what I would expect in gas_token_test.go.
Closes #773