update contract workflows to take in external artifacts #236
Conversation
RnkSngh
force-pushed
the
raunak/add-l1-deploy-support
branch
from
1cd6286 to
d09cc63
Compare
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve modifications to several TypeScript files to enhance the handling of contract factories and artifacts in a blockchain context. Key updates include the expansion of function signatures to accept new parameters for additional contract factories and artifact paths. Notably, changes are made to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
src/scripts/update-contracts-script.ts (1)
11-12: Consider adding type annotations for better code clarity.The destructured values would benefit from explicit TypeScript type annotations, especially for the new parameters
extraBindingsPathandextraArtifactsPath.- const { chain, accounts, args, extraBindingsPath, extraArtifactsPath } = + const { + chain, + accounts, + args, + extraBindingsPath, + extraArtifactsPath, + }: { + chain: Chain; + accounts: AccountManager; + args: Record<string, unknown>; + extraBindingsPath?: string; + extraArtifactsPath?: string; + } = await parseArgsFromCLI();src/tx.ts (2)
Line range hint
24-36: Consider using a more specific type for factories parameter.The implementation looks good and maintains backward compatibility. However, consider using a more specific type than
Record<string, any>to better type-check the contract factories at compile time.- factories: Record<string, any> = {} + factories: Record<string, ethers.ContractFactory> = {}
Line range hint
38-47: Consider using a more specific type for extraContractFactories parameter.The implementation looks good and maintains backward compatibility. However, similar to the previous function, consider using a more specific type than
Record<string, any>to better type-check the contract factories at compile time.- extraContractFactories: Record<string, any> = {}, + extraContractFactories: Record<string, ethers.ContractFactory> = {},src/utils/io.ts (1)
209-214: Clean up commented code and add error handling.The function has been improved to use in-memory factory constructors, but needs some cleanup:
- Remove the commented-out code
- Add error handling for missing factory constructors
export async function readFactoryAbi(factoryName: string, contractFactories: Record<string, any>) { const contractFactoryConstructor = contractFactories[`${factoryName}__factory`] + if (!contractFactoryConstructor) { + throw new Error(`Factory constructor not found for ${factoryName}`); + } - // const data = await readArtifactFile(factoryName); return contractFactoryConstructor.abi; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- src/scripts/update-contracts-script.ts (1 hunks)
- src/tx.ts (3 hunks)
- src/updateContract.ts (2 hunks)
- src/utils/constants.ts (1 hunks)
- src/utils/io.ts (15 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
src/utils/constants.ts (1)
51-54: Verify the usage of these new paths in the codebase.Let's verify how these new path constants are being used in the codebase to ensure they're properly handled where they're consumed.
✅ Verification successful
Let me generate additional scripts to check for proper error handling and file system operations around these paths.
Path constants are properly handled with appropriate error handling
The verification shows that both
EXTRA_BINDINGS_PATHandEXTRA_ARTIFACTS_PATHare used safely in the codebase:
- In
readArtifactFile,EXTRA_ARTIFACTS_PATHis properly null-checked before use and has appropriate try-catch error handling- Both paths are used as optional fallbacks (CLI args take priority, then env vars)
- File system operations around these paths include proper error handling with try-catch blocks and error logging
- The empty string return on failure in
readArtifactFileprovides a safe fallback when files aren't foundNo issues were found in how these new path constants are being used.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check usage of new path constants and their error handling # Test 1: Find direct usage of these constants echo "=== Direct usage of EXTRA_BINDINGS_PATH and EXTRA_ARTIFACTS_PATH ===" rg -l "EXTRA_[A-Z_]+PATH" # Test 2: Check for potential error handling when these paths are used echo -e "\n=== Context around usage of these paths ===" rg -A 5 -B 5 "EXTRA_[A-Z_]+PATH" # Test 3: Look for any fs operations that might need null checks echo -e "\n=== File system operations near these constants ===" ast-grep --pattern 'require("fs").$_($$$)'Length of output: 2915
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for file system operations and error handling in io.ts # Look for readFile/existsSync operations echo "=== File operations in io.ts ===" rg -A 10 "readFile|existsSync" src/utils/io.ts # Check implementation of readArtifactFile function echo -e "\n=== readArtifactFile implementation ===" ast-grep --pattern 'async function readArtifactFile($_) { $$$ }' # Look for try-catch blocks around these paths echo -e "\n=== Error handling around path usage ===" ast-grep --pattern 'try { $$$ EXTRA_$_PATH $$$ } catch'Length of output: 3442
src/updateContract.ts (2)
47-47: LGTM!The environment setup for reading accounts looks correct.
90-91: Consider improving type safety and documentation.While the addition of
extraContractFactoriesenhances flexibility, there are a few suggestions:
- Consider using a more specific type instead of
Record<string, any>to ensure type safety.- Add documentation explaining the expected structure and purpose of
extraContractFactories.Let's verify the
sendTximplementation to ensure proper handling of these parameters:✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response:
Type safety and validation are properly implemented
The codebase shows that
extraContractFactoriesis:
- Consistently typed as
Record<string, any>across all files- Properly merged with existing contract factories in
tx.tsanddeploy.ts- Used in a type-safe manner for contract deployment and transactions
- Validated through the contract factory resolution process
The
anytype is acceptable here since contract factories can have varying interfaces based on the smart contract they represent.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the implementation of sendTx function # Expected: Function signature and usage of extraContractFactories # Search for sendTx function definition ast-grep --pattern 'export $_ function sendTx($_)' # Search for any validation or error handling related to extraContractFactories rg -A 5 'extraContractFactories'Length of output: 3201
src/utils/io.ts (2)
22-23: LGTM: New constants align with PR objectives.The addition of
EXTRA_BINDINGS_PATHandEXTRA_ARTIFACTS_PATHsupports the goal of handling external artifacts.
380-384: LGTM: CLI argument handling is well-implemented.The changes properly support the new extra paths while maintaining backward compatibility through fallback to constants.
Also applies to: 411-412
|
Ci failures are due to stacking PRs - should be passing once we have all into one branch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 19
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (18)
src/index.ts (1)
15-16: Consider documenting this type change in CHANGELOG.md.The export change from
AccountRegistrytoSingleSigAccountRegistrymight be a breaking change for consumers of this package.#!/bin/bash # Check if this change is documented rg -i "accountregistry|singlesigaccountregistry" CHANGELOG.md || echo "No documentation found for this change in CHANGELOG.md"src/scripts/update-contracts-script.ts (2)
23-25: Add validation for loaded external contracts.Consider adding validation to ensure the loaded contracts meet expected schema/interface requirements.
const existingContracts = externalContractsPath - ? ContractRegistryLoader.loadSingle(externalContractsPath) + ? validateExternalContracts(ContractRegistryLoader.loadSingle(externalContractsPath)) : ContractRegistryLoader.emptySingle(); +function validateExternalContracts(contracts: any) { + // Add validation logic here + // e.g., check for required properties, contract interfaces, etc. + return contracts; +}
33-36: Document the purpose of boolean flags.The boolean parameters (
false,false,true) lack context and their purpose is unclear. Consider adding comments to explain their meaning or create named constants.+ // Define named constants for better clarity + const DRY_RUN = false; + const SKIP_CONFIRMATION = false; + const VALIDATE_ONLY = true; + updateContractsForChain( chain, accounts.mustGet(chain.chainName), existingContracts, contractUpdates, getOutputLogger(), - false, - false, - true, + DRY_RUN, // Indicates if this is a dry run + SKIP_CONFIRMATION, // Controls confirmation prompts + VALIDATE_ONLY, // Only validate without making changes extraContractFactories );src/evm/schemas/wallet.ts (1)
33-51: Fix arrow function formatting inconsistency.The type guard functions are correctly implemented but have inconsistent formatting in the arrow function declarations.
Apply consistent spacing:
-export const isPrivateKey = (account: unknown): account is PrivateKey=> { +export const isPrivateKey = (account: unknown): account is PrivateKey => { -export const isMnemonic = (account: unknown): account is Mnemonic=> { +export const isMnemonic = (account: unknown): account is Mnemonic => { -): account is SingleSigAccount=> { +): account is SingleSigAccount => {src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts (1)
53-91: Consider adding error handling for debugging.The type guards could benefit from logging validation errors in development environments.
export const isUninitializedMultisigConfig = ( account: unknown ): account is UninitializedMultisigConfig => { - return uninitializedMultisigConfig.safeParse(account).success; + const result = uninitializedMultisigConfig.safeParse(account); + if (!result.success && process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development') { + console.debug('UninitializedMultisigConfig validation failed:', result.error); + } + return result.success; };Apply similar changes to other type guards.
src/scripts/verify-contract-script.ts (3)
Line range hint
54-54: Address the TODO comment regarding MODULE_ROOT check.The TODO comment indicates a missing validation for the current directory before changing to MODULE_ROOT_PATH.
Would you like me to help implement the MODULE_ROOT check to ensure safe directory navigation?
Line range hint
57-63: Improve error handling and cleanup for forge verification.Several improvements could be made to this section:
- The error from catch block is logged but the function continues execution
- The verify-out.txt file is created but never cleaned up
- The command output is stored in a variable but only used for logging
Consider this improved implementation:
cd(MODULE_ROOT_PATH); try { - command = await $`forge verify-contract ${args} 2>&1 | tee verify-out.txt`; + command = await $`forge verify-contract ${args}`; logger.info("verification result ", command); } catch (e) { logger.error("error ", e); + throw e; // Re-throw to handle the error in the calling function } - - logger.info("verification result ", command);
Line range hint
85-93: Enhance error reporting in verification failures.While the error handling captures failures, it could provide more context about the verification process.
Consider this enhancement:
try { await verifyContract( parsed.data, chainFolder, etherscanApiKey, verifierUrl, logger ); } catch (e) { - logger.error( - `Failed to verify contract ${parsed.data.name} with error: ${e}` - ); + logger.error({ + message: `Contract verification failed`, + contract: parsed.data.name, + error: e instanceof Error ? e.message : String(e), + solcVersion: parsed.data.solcVersion, + }); }src/updateContract.ts (2)
18-18: Consider using a more specific type for extraContractFactories.While changing from
anytoobjectis an improvement, consider defining a more specific interface or type forextraContractFactoriesto better document the expected structure and provide better type safety.Example improvement:
interface ContractFactory { deploy: (...args: any[]) => Promise<any>; // Add other expected properties } // Then use this type: extraContractFactories: Record<string, ContractFactory>Also applies to: 25-25
33-34: Enhance nonce management documentation.While the comment explains the purpose, consider adding more details about nonce management strategy and potential race conditions in concurrent scenarios.
Example improvement:
// Maps addresses to their next nonce value. Used to prevent nonce-too-low errors // in concurrent transactions. Note: This is a local cache and may need external // synchronization in high-concurrency scenarios. const nonces: Record<string, number> = {};src/tx.ts (1)
121-122: Enhance error message for unknown account type.The current error message might not be helpful as
${account}could result in[object Object]. Consider including more specific account information.- throw new Error(`Unknown account type: ${account}`); + throw new Error(`Unknown account type: ${account.constructor.name}`);src/deploy.ts (3)
42-55: Add input validation togetFactoryFileName.While the function handles the basic cases well, consider adding input validation to ensure robustness:
export const getFactoryFileName = ( factoryName: string, solcVersion: string | undefined ) => { + if (!factoryName) { + throw new Error('Factory name cannot be empty'); + } if (!solcVersion) return `${factoryName}__factory`; + if (!solcVersion.match(/^v?\d+\.\d+\.\d+$/)) { + throw new Error('Invalid solc version format. Expected: v0.8.15 or 0.8.15'); + } const versionStr = solcVersion .split("") .filter((c) => c !== "." && c !== "v") .join(""); return `${factoryName}${versionStr}__factory`; };
101-101: Document the purpose of extraContractFactories parameter.The type changes look good, but the new parameter would benefit from documentation:
export const deployContract = async ( chain: Chain, accountRegistry: SingleSigAccountRegistry|SendingAccountRegistry, contract: ContractItem, logger: Logger, dryRun: boolean = false, writeContracts: boolean = true, // True if you want to save persisted artifact files. + // Additional contract factories to be merged with the default vibcContractFactories extraContractFactories: Record<string, object> = {}, nonces: Record<string, number> = {}, env: StringToStringMap = {} )Also applies to: 106-106
143-148: Enhance the error message for multisig deployments.The error message could be more informative about why multisig deployments are not supported and what alternatives are available:
if (isMultisig(deployer)) { throw new Error( - "Contract Deployments not supported for multisig wallets!" + "Contract deployments are not supported for multisig wallets. Please use a single-signature wallet for contract deployment operations." ); }src/utils/io.ts (2)
221-228: Consider adding error handling for missing factory constructor.The implementation looks good but could benefit from defensive programming.
Add error handling:
export async function readFactoryAbi( factoryName: string, contractFactories: Record<string, any> ) { const contractFactoryConstructor = contractFactories[`${factoryName}__factory`]; + if (!contractFactoryConstructor) { + throw new Error(`Factory constructor not found for ${factoryName}`); + } return contractFactoryConstructor.abi; }
520-536: Consider adding type safety for account objects.While the implementation is correct, it could benefit from type safety.
Consider defining an interface for the account object:
interface AccountSpec { name: string; chainId: number; safeAddress?: string; privateKey: string; }Then update the implementation:
- const newYamlFile = yamlFile.map((account: any) => { + const newYamlFile = yamlFile.map((account: AccountSpec) => {src/evm/schemas/account.ts (1)
Line range hint
114-119: Implement handling for multisig accounts inloadEvmAccountsThe
loadEvmAccountsfunction currently processes onlySingleSigAccounttypes. SinceevmAccountsnow includesinitializedMultisigConfiganduninitializedMultisigConfig, ensure these multisig accounts are appropriately handled to avoid missing configurations.src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (1)
125-138: Consider Handling Unknown Account ConfigurationsThe
loadSendingAccountsfunction currently handles only multisig and single-signature accounts. If an account configuration doesn't match these types, it is silently ignored.Add an
elseclause to handle or log unknown account configurations:} else if (isSingleSigAccount(account)) { walletMap.set(account.name, createWallet(account)); + } else { + console.warn(`Unknown account configuration for ${account.name}.`); }This ensures that all account configurations are acknowledged, and potential misconfigurations are brought to attention.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (16)
- src/deploy.ts (8 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/account.ts (2 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/contract.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/wallet.ts (1 hunks)
- src/index.ts (2 hunks)
- src/multisig/safe.ts (0 hunks)
- src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/execute-multisig-tx.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/update-contracts-script.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/verify-contract-script.ts (3 hunks)
- src/tx.ts (5 hunks)
- src/updateContract.ts (3 hunks)
- src/utils/constants.ts (1 hunks)
- src/utils/io.ts (18 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/multisig/safe.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/utils/constants.ts
🔇 Additional comments (38)
src/index.ts (1)
1-1: Verify the impact of switching to SingleSigAccountRegistry.The change from
AccountRegistrytoSingleSigAccountRegistrysuggests a move towards more specific typing. Let's verify all usages to ensure this change doesn't break existing code.✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
The change to SingleSigAccountRegistry is consistent across the codebase
The codebase shows proper usage of
SingleSigAccountRegistrythroughout, with no legacy references to a plainAccountRegistry. The class is used consistently alongsideSendingAccountRegistryas a type union in function parameters, indicating this is an intentional design pattern rather than a breaking change.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining references to AccountRegistry rg "AccountRegistry[^S]" --type ts # Search for existing uses of SingleSigAccountRegistry rg "SingleSigAccountRegistry" --type tsLength of output: 4006
src/scripts/execute-multisig-tx.ts (2)
2-7: LGTM! Import changes align with the new account registry structure.The transition from
AccountRegistrytoSendingAccountRegistryis properly reflected in the imports, maintaining consistency with related files.
19-21: Verify the consistency of multisig validation across the codebase.The validation logic looks correct, but let's ensure it's consistently applied across all multisig operations.
Let's check for consistent validation usage:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the multisig validation patterns in the identified files.
Let me check the implementation of the validation functions and their usage patterns.
Validation is consistently implemented and correctly used across the codebase
The multisig validation is properly implemented with comprehensive type guards in
src/evm/schemas/multisig.tsand is consistently used across the codebase:
execute-multisig-tx.tscorrectly validates initialized multisig accounts before executiondeploy.tsproperly prevents multisig accounts from deploying contractstx.tsappropriately handles multisig transaction routing- The validation functions are based on Zod schemas ensuring type safety
- No instances of missing or inconsistent validation were found
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for consistent usage of isInitializedMultisig ast-grep --pattern 'if (!isInitializedMultisig($_)) { $$$ }' # Look for other multisig validation patterns that might need updating rg -l "multisig.*wallet"Length of output: 382
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the content of deploy.ts for multisig validation cat src/deploy.ts # Look for any other multisig-related function calls or validations rg "multisig" -A 3 -B 3 # Check for isInitializedMultisig function definition and usage ast-grep --pattern 'function isInitializedMultisig($_) { $$$ }'Length of output: 25105
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the implementation of multisig validation functions cat src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts # Look for all validation function usages rg "isInitializedMultisig|isUninitializedMultisig|isMultisig" -A 2 -B 2Length of output: 9167
src/evm/schemas/wallet.ts (2)
27-31: LGTM! Well-structured type definitions.The single signature account schema and type definitions are well-organized and properly leverage zod's type inference capabilities.
1-8: LGTM! Consider adding runtime validation for wallet instances.The wallet schema correctly handles both
ethers.Walletandethers.HDNodeWallettypes. However, since these are runtime instances, consider adding additional validation to ensure the wallet objects are properly initialized with valid keys/mnemonics.Let's verify the ethers version being used:
src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts (3)
1-2: LGTM! Clean and minimal imports.
44-51: LGTM! Clean type exports using Zod inference.
1-91: Verify wallet schema integration.Let's ensure the imported wallet schema is compatible with these multisig schemas.
✅ Verification successful
Wallet schema integration is correctly implemented
The verification confirms that:
- The wallet schema is properly defined in
src/evm/schemas/wallet.tsas a Zod union type accepting bothethers.Walletandethers.HDNodeWallet- It's correctly imported in
multisig.tsusing a relative import- The schema is appropriately used as a field in both
unInitializedMultisigandinitializedMultisigschemasThe integration is sound and follows best practices for type safety and runtime validation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify wallet schema compatibility and usage # Test 1: Check wallet schema definition echo "Checking wallet schema definition..." ast-grep --pattern 'export const wallet = z.object({$$$})' # Test 2: Check wallet schema usage in other files echo "Checking wallet schema usage..." rg -l "import.*wallet.*from.*schemas/wallet"Length of output: 263
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a different approach to locate and verify the wallet schema # Find the wallet schema file echo "Looking for wallet.ts files..." fd -e ts wallet # Check imports of wallet in the current file echo "Checking relative imports..." rg "import.*wallet.*from.*" src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts # Look for wallet schema usage patterns echo "Looking for wallet schema patterns..." ast-grep --pattern 'wallet: z.object' # Broader search for wallet-related schemas echo "Looking for wallet-related schemas..." rg "wallet.*=.*z\." -A 3Length of output: 719
src/scripts/verify-contract-script.ts (3)
13-13: LGTM! Type-safe contract handling.The addition of ContractItem and ContractItemSchema imports enhances type safety when handling contract data.
17-25: LGTM! Enhanced contract verification with structured input.The transition from string-based to object-based contract data improves type safety and allows for more flexible contract verification.
17-25: Verify handling of all external contract scenarios.The changes support external artifacts, but let's verify the handling of various contract scenarios.
Also applies to: 85-93
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the contract verification implementation to ensure all scenarios are properly handled.
Based on the comprehensive analysis of the verification implementation and contract handling, I can now provide a final response:
External contract verification is properly implemented and handles all scenarios
The verification script correctly handles external contracts through:
- Proper solc version management via
ContractItem.solcVersion- Robust metadata extraction from deployment artifacts
- Comprehensive error handling for verification failures
- Support for different contract types as evidenced by the type system
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for different contract verification patterns and potential edge cases # Test 1: Look for different solc version patterns in contract updates echo "Checking for solc version patterns in contract updates..." rg -g '*.json' -g '*.ts' 'solcVersion' # Test 2: Check for external contract references echo "Checking for external contract handling patterns..." rg -g '*.ts' 'external.*contract|external.*artifact' # Test 3: Look for contract verification patterns echo "Checking for verification patterns..." ast-grep --pattern 'verify.*contract'Length of output: 1521
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the complete implementation of contract verification # Look for the verification implementation echo "Checking verification implementation..." rg -g '*.ts' -A 10 'verify.*contract' # Check for contract deployment patterns echo "Checking deployment patterns..." rg -g '*.ts' -A 5 'readFromDeploymentFile|readMetadata' # Check contract type definitions echo "Checking contract type definitions..." rg -g '*.ts' 'interface.*Contract|type.*Contract'Length of output: 26900
src/evm/schemas/contract.ts (1)
30-30: LGTM: The solcVersion field is correctly integrated.The addition of an optional solcVersion field to the ContractItemSchema is well-structured and aligns with the schema's existing patterns.
src/updateContract.ts (4)
4-4: LGTM! Import changes improve type safety.The addition of specific account registry types (
SingleSigAccountRegistryandSendingAccountRegistry) enhances type safety by replacing the genericAccountRegistrytype.Also applies to: 13-13
45-45: LGTM! Clear documentation of environment setup.The comment effectively explains the environment variable loading sequence, making the code more maintainable.
88-89: Verify sendTx handling of extraContractFactories.Ensure that the
sendTxfunction properly handles theextraContractFactoriesparameter and integrates it with the external artifacts workflow.#!/bin/bash # Search for sendTx implementation to verify parameter handling ast-grep --pattern 'function sendTx($$$, extraContractFactories: $_) { $$$ }'
36-36: Verify connectProviderAccounts compatibility.Ensure that both
SingleSigAccountRegistryandSendingAccountRegistryimplement theconnectProviderAccountsmethod consistently.✅ Verification successful
Method compatibility verified across registry implementations
The
connectProviderAccountsmethod is consistently implemented in both registry types:
src/evm/schemas/account.ts(SingleSigAccountRegistry)src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts(SendingAccountRegistry)Both implementations follow the same pattern of connecting accounts to the provided RPC endpoint, making the direct method call in
updateContract.tssafe to use.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for connectProviderAccounts implementation in both registry types ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ implements SingleSigAccountRegistry { $$$ connectProviderAccounts($$$) { $$$ } $$$ }' ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ implements SendingAccountRegistry { $$$ connectProviderAccounts($$$) { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 4668
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a different approach to find the implementations # First, let's find the interface definitions echo "=== Searching for interface definitions ===" rg "interface (Single|Sending).*Registry" -A 5 echo "=== Searching for connectProviderAccounts implementations ===" rg "connectProviderAccounts" -A 2Length of output: 1060
src/tx.ts (3)
Line range hint
17-28: LGTM: Clean implementation of external factories support.The addition of the
factoriesparameter with a default empty object maintains backward compatibility while enabling external ABI support.
32-40: LGTM: Improved type safety in function signature.The narrowed account registry types provide better type safety and the new
extraContractFactoriesparameter aligns with the external artifacts support.
49-53: LGTM: Proper propagation of contract factories.The contract factories are correctly passed through to the ABI reader.
src/deploy.ts (1)
12-12: LGTM: Import changes improve type safety.The transition from generic
AccountRegistryto specific registry types (SingleSigAccountRegistryandSendingAccountRegistry) enhances type safety and makes the code's dependencies more explicit.Also applies to: 25-26
src/utils/io.ts (5)
22-24: LGTM: New path constants follow existing patterns.The new constants for external paths are properly imported and follow the established naming conventions.
213-216: LGTM: Proper propagation of solcVersion parameter.The function correctly forwards the solcVersion parameter to readArtifactFile.
254-257: LGTM: Proper usage of solcVersion in metadata retrieval.The function correctly passes the solcVersion parameter to readMetadata.
397-402: LGTM: Well-documented CLI argument parsing for new paths.The implementation properly handles the new path arguments and includes helpful comments explaining their purpose.
459-459: LGTM: Clear and descriptive error messages.The error messages are informative and help users understand what's missing.
Also applies to: 486-486
src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (8)
2-3: Updated imports to include 'toBigInt' and 'SingleSigAccountRegistry'The imports have been appropriately updated to reflect changes in account management and utility functions.
10-11: Imported 'SendingAccountRegistry' and 'isUninitializedMultisig'New imports have been added to support the updated account initialization and validation logic.
14-15: Adjusted destructuring assignment in 'main' functionThe destructuring assignment now omits
ownersandthreshold, reflecting the new approach where these values are retrieved from themultisigAccountobject.
26-31: Added validation for uninitialized multisig accountA validation check has been added to ensure the account is an uninitialized multisig account before proceeding with initialization. This enhances error handling and prevents potential issues.
38-44: Added chain ID consistency checkThe code now verifies that the chain ID from the provider matches the chain ID specified in the
multisigAccount. This is an important validation to prevent mismatches during deployment.
49-50: Updated 'newSafeFromOwner' parameters to use multisig account detailsThe
ownersandthresholdparameters fornewSafeFromOwnerare now sourced frommultisigAccount, ensuring consistency with the account data.
7-7: Renamed function to 'parseMultisigInitArgsFromCLI'The function
parseMultiSigInitArgsFromCLIhas been correctly renamed toparseMultisigInitArgsFromCLIto ensure consistent naming conventions.Run the following script to verify that no occurrences of the old function name remain:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to 'parseMultiSigInitArgsFromCLI' # Expect: No output indicates all references have been updated. rg 'parseMultiSigInitArgsFromCLI' --type ts
56-56: Modified 'saveMultisigAddressToAccountsSpec' function callThe
chainIdparameter has been removed from the function call. Verify that this change aligns with the updated function signature and that thechainIdis no longer required.Run the following script to confirm the function signature of
saveMultisigAddressToAccountsSpec:✅ Verification successful
Function signature change verified - removal of chainId parameter is correct
Based on the search results, the
saveMultisigAddressToAccountsSpecfunction insrc/utils/io.tsonly requires three parameters:
newSafeAddress: stringaccountsSpecPath: stringownerName: stringThe function call in
deploy-multisig.tscorrectly matches this signature by passing:
newSafeAddressaccountsSpecPathinitiatorThe removal of the
chainIdparameter is consistent with the current function definition.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the definition of 'saveMultisigAddressToAccountsSpec' to see if 'chainId' is required. # Expect: The function should not require 'chainId' as a parameter. rg 'function saveMultisigAddressToAccountsSpec' -A 5 --type tsLength of output: 64
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a broader search to find the function definition rg "saveMultisigAddressToAccountsSpec" --type ts -A 5Length of output: 1164
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's also search for any file that might contain this function fd "accounts.spec" --type f --extension tsLength of output: 42
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check for any file with 'multisig' and 'accounts' in its name fd "multisig.*accounts" --type f --extension tsLength of output: 49
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's also check the file content where this function is being called rg -B 5 -A 5 "saveMultisigAddressToAccountsSpec\(" --type tsLength of output: 595
src/evm/schemas/account.ts (4)
81-81: Confirm no sensitive data is exposed inserialize()Including
wallets[index].addressin the serialized output is acceptable. However, ensure that sensitive information like private keys or mnemonics are not unintentionally exposed.
96-102: Handle potential exceptions when connecting accounts to the providerIn the
connectProviderAccountsmethod, ensure that all accounts can successfully connect to the provider. If an account type does not support theconnectmethod, this could cause runtime errors. Implement error handling to manage such cases.
47-49: Ensure consistent renaming ofAccountRegistrytoSingleSigAccountRegistryThe class
AccountRegistryhas been renamed toSingleSigAccountRegistry. Verify that all references toAccountRegistryacross the codebase have been updated accordingly to avoid reference errors.#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for occurrences of 'AccountRegistry' outside this file. rg 'AccountRegistry' --glob '!src/evm/schemas/account.ts'
37-39: Verify all references toisEvmAccountare updatedThe function
isEvmAccounthas been renamed toisEvmAccounts. Please ensure that all occurrences ofisEvmAccountin the codebase have been updated to prevent any potential issues.✅ Verification successful
Let me search specifically for
isEvmAccount(singular form) to verify if there are any remaining references that need to be updated.
Let me try one more search to be thorough, this time looking for any imports or references of this function:
No issues found with
isEvmAccountreferencesThe search results show that all existing references in the codebase are already using the plural form
isEvmAccounts, which matches the new function name. The function is being used correctly in bothaccount.tsandsendingAccount.ts. No updates are needed.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find any remaining references to 'isEvmAccount' in the codebase. rg 'isEvmAccount'Length of output: 2170
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the singular form 'isEvmAccount' (without 's') rg "isEvmAccount[^s]"Length of output: 23
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any imports or references to the function, including both singular and plural forms rg -A 2 "import.*isEvmAccount|isEvmAccount[s]?\("Length of output: 451
src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (1)
68-77: Ensure 'wallets' and 'config' Arrays Are Properly AlignedIn the
serializemethod, the mapping assumes thatwalletsandconfigarrays are aligned by index. If any accounts have been added or removed, this alignment may be disrupted, leading to incorrect serialization.Please verify that the
walletsandconfigarrays maintain consistent order and length. Consider using a mapping by account name to ensure accurate serialization, like so:public serialize() { - const wallets = this.toList(); - return this.config.map((item, index) => { - const walletItem = wallets[index]; + return this.config.map((item) => { + const walletItem = this.mustGet(item.name); return { name: item.name, privateKey: this.getSinglePrivateKeyFromAccount(item.name),This approach retrieves the wallet directly by account name, ensuring correct data mapping.
RnkSngh
force-pushed
the
raunak/add-l1-deploy-support
branch
from
da9b8a5 to
9222d36
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 9
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
src/scripts/update-contracts-script.ts (2)
19-28: Consider using a more specific type for contract factories.The
Record<string, object>type is too permissive. Consider creating a specific type or interface that accurately represents the structure of contract factories.- let extraContractFactories: Record<string, object> | null = null; + let extraContractFactories: Record<string, ContractFactory> | null = null;
40-45: Reconsider the nullish coalescing operator usage.The
extraContractFactories ?? undefinedis redundant sincenull ?? undefinedevaluates toundefined. You can directly passextraContractFactories.{ dryRun: false, forceDeployNewContracts: false, writeContracts: true, - extraContractFactories: extraContractFactories ?? undefined, + extraContractFactories, }src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (1)
26-31: Enhance error message with account details.Consider including more specific details in the error message to help with debugging.
- "Account read from yaml but isn't a multisig account that needs to be initialized." + `Account ${initiator} is not an uninitialized multisig account. Current account type: ${multisigAccount.type}`src/scripts/fork-deployment-test.ts (1)
38-42: Consider making options configurable via CLI arguments.The change to use a named options object improves code clarity. However, these values are currently hardcoded. Consider making them configurable through CLI arguments to provide more flexibility during testing.
Example enhancement:
const { chain, accounts, updateSpecs, anvilPort } = await parseArgsFromCLI(); +const { dryRun = false, forceDeployNewContracts = false, writeContracts = true } = await parseArgsFromCLI(); // ... later in the code ... await updateContractsForChain( forkedChain, accounts.mustGet(chain.chainName), ContractRegistryLoader.emptySingle(), contractUpdates, getOutputLogger(), { - dryRun: false, - forceDeployNewContracts: false, - writeContracts: true, + dryRun, + forceDeployNewContracts, + writeContracts, } );src/tx.ts (1)
65-65: Enhance error message for unknown account types.While the account type handling is more robust now, the error message could be more informative.
Consider this improvement:
- throw new Error(`Unknown account type: ${account}`); + throw new Error(`Unsupported account type. Expected SingleSigAccountRegistry or SendingAccountRegistry, got: ${Object.prototype.toString.call(account)}`);Also applies to: 87-88, 121-122
src/deploy.ts (1)
42-55: LGTM: Well-structured utility function with clear purpose.The function effectively handles factory file naming with Solidity version support.
Consider adding JSDoc with examples:
+/** + * Generates a factory file name based on the contract name and Solidity version. + * @param factoryName - The name of the contract factory + * @param solcVersion - Optional Solidity compiler version + * @returns Factory file name (e.g., "MyContract0815__factory" for version "0.8.15") + */ export const getFactoryFileName = (
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (17)
- src/deploy.ts (8 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/account.ts (2 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/contract.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/wallet.ts (1 hunks)
- src/index.ts (2 hunks)
- src/multisig/safe.ts (0 hunks)
- src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/execute-multisig-tx.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/fork-deployment-test.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/update-contracts-script.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/verify-contract-script.ts (3 hunks)
- src/tx.ts (5 hunks)
- src/updateContract.ts (3 hunks)
- src/utils/constants.ts (1 hunks)
- src/utils/io.ts (18 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/multisig/safe.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (7)
- src/evm/schemas/contract.ts
- src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts
- src/evm/schemas/wallet.ts
- src/index.ts
- src/scripts/execute-multisig-tx.ts
- src/scripts/verify-contract-script.ts
- src/utils/constants.ts
🔇 Additional comments (26)
src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (2)
14-15: LGTM! Good architectural improvement.Moving the ownership details to the account configuration centralizes the multisig setup and makes it more maintainable.
2-11: Verify the necessity of both registry imports.The file imports both
SingleSigAccountRegistryandSendingAccountRegistry. Consider if both are necessary or if this indicates potential duplication of functionality.✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
Both registry imports serve distinct purposes and are correctly used
The imports are justified as:
SingleSigAccountRegistryis imported but not directly used in this file. It's part of the barrel import from ".." which suggests it's needed for type compatibility with other functions/modulesSendingAccountRegistryis actively used in the file for loading multisig accounts viaSendingAccountRegistry.loadMultiple()These registries serve different purposes:
SingleSigAccountRegistryhandles single-signature walletsSendingAccountRegistryhandles sending accounts, which includes multisig functionality🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check usage of both registry types echo "Checking SingleSigAccountRegistry usage:" rg -A 3 "SingleSigAccountRegistry" echo -e "\nChecking SendingAccountRegistry usage:" rg -A 3 "SendingAccountRegistry"Length of output: 7605
src/scripts/fork-deployment-test.ts (1)
38-42: Verify consistent updates across the codebase.Let's ensure all calls to
updateContractsForChainhave been updated to use the new options object pattern.✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the function definition and its parameters to verify if the options object is a required parameter.
Let me try a different approach to get the function definition using ripgrep with more context lines.
Based on the function definition and the usage patterns found, I can now provide the final response:
The review comment's concern has been addressed correctly
The
updateContractsForChainfunction has an optionaloptionsparameter with default values, making it backward compatible. All existing calls in the codebase (found inupdate-contracts-script.tsandfork-deployment-test.ts) are correct as they don't need to explicitly pass the options parameter since it has default values:options: UpdateContractsOpts = { dryRun: false, forceDeployNewContracts: false, writeContracts: true, extraContractFactories: {}, }🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find all calls to updateContractsForChain to verify they use the new options object pattern # Expected: All calls should use an object with named properties as the last argument # Search for function calls rg -A 5 "updateContractsForChain\(" --type tsLength of output: 1182
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the function definition and implementation of updateContractsForChain ast-grep --pattern 'export async function updateContractsForChain($_) { $$$ }'Length of output: 82
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the function definition and implementation of updateContractsForChain with more context rg -B 2 -A 15 "^export async function updateContractsForChain" --type tsLength of output: 1148
src/tx.ts (5)
3-3: LGTM: Import changes enhance type safety.The new imports properly support the enhanced type checking and validation functionality.
Also applies to: 5-5, 10-14
32-40: LGTM: Enhanced type safety in function signature.The changes improve type safety by:
- Being explicit about supported account registry types
- Adding extraContractFactories with a safe default
44-47: Duplicate concern: Factory collision validation needed.The previous review comment about validating contract factory collisions is still applicable to this code segment.
49-53: LGTM: Consistent usage of contract factories.The changes correctly pass the merged contract factories to readAbiFromDeployedContract.
17-19: Verify ABI resolution order.The function correctly supports external factories while maintaining backward compatibility. The ABI resolution order is:
- Check existingContractOverrides
- Use readFactoryAbi with provided factories
Also applies to: 28-28
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the ABI resolution logic by checking the implementation of
readFactoryAbi.
Let me try a different approach to check the implementation using ripgrep with more context.
Let me check the complete implementation of the function that uses readFactoryAbi to verify the resolution order.
Let me try one last time with ripgrep to get the complete function implementation.
ABI resolution order is correctly implemented
The implementation confirms the ABI resolution order:
- First checks
existingContractOverridesfor an ABI- Falls back to
readFactoryAbiwith provided factories if no override existsThe code maintains backward compatibility through the default empty object parameter and follows a clear precedence in ABI resolution.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the ABI resolution logic across the codebase # Test: Search for other uses of readFactoryAbi to ensure consistent behavior rg "readFactoryAbi" -B 2 -A 2Length of output: 647
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the implementation of readFactoryAbi to verify resolution order ast-grep --pattern 'export async function readFactoryAbi($_) { $$$ }'Length of output: 73
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the implementation of readFactoryAbi with more context rg "export async function readFactoryAbi" -A 20 src/utils/io.tsLength of output: 635
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the complete implementation of readAbiFromDeployedContract ast-grep --pattern 'export async function readAbiFromDeployedContract($_) { $$$ }'Length of output: 86
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the complete implementation of readAbiFromDeployedContract rg "export async function readAbiFromDeployedContract" -B 2 -A 15 src/tx.tsLength of output: 598
src/evm/schemas/account.ts (3)
6-15: LGTM: Clean separation of concernsThe refactoring improves modularity by separating wallet and multisig functionality into dedicated modules.
26-28: LGTM: Comprehensive account type definitionThe union type properly encompasses both single signature and multisig account configurations.
33-44: LGTM: Improved type safetyThe type guards now use
unknowninstead ofany, which is a TypeScript best practice for better type safety.src/deploy.ts (4)
12-12: LGTM: Import changes enhance type safety.The replacement of the generic
AccountRegistrywith specific registry types (SingleSigAccountRegistry,SendingAccountRegistry) and the addition ofisMultisigimprove type safety and separation of concerns.Also applies to: 25-26
67-68: LGTM: Enhanced factory file resolution with better error handling.The integration of
solcVersionparameter and improved error message with factory file name provides better debugging context.Also applies to: 70-72, 87-87
101-101: LGTM: Improved type safety and validation.The union type for
accountRegistryand simplified multisig validation enhance code robustness.Also applies to: 143-148
106-106: Verify external contract factories integration.The handling of external contract factories needs verification to ensure proper integration with existing contracts.
Also applies to: 127-128, 186-186
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about how these external contract factories are used in the codebase.
External contract factories are properly integrated
The codebase shows a consistent and well-structured integration of external contract factories:
- Used as an optional parameter with proper type definition (
Record<string, object>)- Correctly merged with existing
vibcContractFactoriesin both deployment and transaction handling- Properly propagated through the update contract flow
- Default empty object provided when not specified
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the integration of external contract factories # Test 1: Check for any existing external contract factory implementations echo "Checking for external contract factory implementations..." rg -l "extraContractFactories" --type ts # Test 2: Check for contract deployment tests using external factories echo "Checking for contract deployment tests..." rg -l "deploy.*extraContractFactories" --type ts --type test # Test 3: Check for potential factory name conflicts echo "Checking for factory name patterns..." ast-grep --pattern 'getFactoryFileName($name, $version)'Length of output: 579
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's examine the actual usage of extraContractFactories in the found files echo "Checking extraContractFactories usage in deploy.ts..." rg "extraContractFactories" src/deploy.ts -B 2 -A 2 echo -e "\nChecking extraContractFactories usage in updateContract.ts..." rg "extraContractFactories" src/updateContract.ts -B 2 -A 2 echo -e "\nChecking extraContractFactories usage in tx.ts..." rg "extraContractFactories" src/tx.ts -B 2 -A 2 echo -e "\nChecking for contract factory related tests..." rg "extraContractFactories" -g "**/*.test.ts" -B 2 -A 2 echo -e "\nChecking for contract factory interface or type definitions..." ast-grep --pattern 'interface $_ { $$$ extraContractFactories$_ $$$ }'Length of output: 2264
src/utils/io.ts (7)
22-24: LGTM: New path constants are well-organized.The addition of new path constants for external artifacts and bindings is clean and follows the existing pattern.
213-228: LGTM: Function signatures updated correctly.The addition of solcVersion and contractFactories parameters enhances the flexibility of these functions.
254-257: LGTM: Proper propagation of solcVersion parameter.The function correctly passes the solcVersion parameter to readMetadata.
520-536: LGTM: Proper error handling in multisig address management.The function correctly handles the case of missing owners and maintains the account structure.
Line range hint
359-367: LGTM: Proper handling of initialization arguments.The function correctly handles the $INITARGS replacement with appropriate error handling.
185-209:⚠️ Potential issueCritical: Error handling issues persist in readArtifactFile.
The function has several issues that need to be addressed:
- The error message on line 208 uses
pathafter the loop ends, which will be undefined- Returning an empty string on failure makes error handling difficult for callers
- Using console.log for errors instead of proper error handling
Apply this fix:
export async function readArtifactFile( artifactName: string, solcVersion: string | undefined ) { const basePaths = [ARTIFACTS_PATH]; if (EXTRA_ARTIFACTS_PATH) { basePaths.push(EXTRA_ARTIFACTS_PATH); } const paths = basePaths.map((basePath) => { return path.join( basePath, `${artifactName}.sol`, `${artifactName}${solcVersion ? `.${solcVersion}` : ''}.json` ); }); + const errors: string[] = []; for (const path of paths) { try { return await fsAsync.readFile(path, 'utf8'); } catch (e) { - console.log(`no file found in ${path}: \n`, e); + errors.push(`${path}: ${e.message}`); } } - console.error(`error reading from file in extra file ${path}: \n`); - return ''; + throw new Error( + `Failed to read artifact ${artifactName} from any of the following paths:\n${errors.join('\n')}` + ); }Likely invalid or redundant comment.
397-402: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionConsider validating path arguments.
While the implementation is correct, consider validating that the provided paths exist when they're specified through CLI arguments.
Consider adding path validation:
const extraBindingsPath = (argv1.EXTRA_BINDINGS_PATH as string) || EXTRA_BINDINGS_PATH; +if (extraBindingsPath && !fs.existsSync(extraBindingsPath)) { + throw new Error(`Extra bindings path does not exist: ${extraBindingsPath}`); +}src/updateContract.ts (3)
49-49: Appropriate use ofconstfornoncesDeclaring
noncesas aconstis appropriate since we are modifying the properties of the object but not reassigning the variable itself. This prevents accidental reassignment and enhances code safety.
104-105:⚠️ Potential issueVerify
sendTxfunction accepts the new parametersThe
sendTxfunction now includesenvandextraContractFactoriesas additional parameters. Ensure that thesendTxfunction signature has been updated to accept these parameters and that they are used correctly within the function.Run the following script to confirm the
sendTxfunction signature includesenvandextraContractFactories:#!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the definition of `sendTx` to verify its parameters. ast-grep --pattern $'export async function sendTx($_, $_, $_, $_, $_, $_, $_, $_, $_) { $$$ }' src/tx.tsThis will help confirm that
sendTxis defined with the expected parameters.
25-25:⚠️ Potential issueEnsure
connectProviderAccountsmethod exists on both registry typesBy changing
accountRegistryto the union typeSingleSigAccountRegistry | SendingAccountRegistry, you need to ensure that theconnectProviderAccountsmethod is available on both types. IfSingleSigAccountRegistrydoes not implementconnectProviderAccounts, this could lead to runtime errors when callingaccountRegistry.connectProviderAccounts(chain.rpc);.Run the following script to verify if
connectProviderAccountsexists onSingleSigAccountRegistry:This will search for the
connectProviderAccountsmethod withinSingleSigAccountRegistry.Also applies to: 52-52
✅ Verification successful
The
connectProviderAccountsmethod exists on both registry types ✅Based on the search results, both
SingleSigAccountRegistry(insrc/evm/schemas/account.ts) andSendingAccountRegistry(insrc/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts) implement theconnectProviderAccountsmethod with compatible signatures, accepting anrpcstring parameter. The union type is safe to use.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that `connectProviderAccounts` is defined in `SingleSigAccountRegistry`. ast-grep --pattern $'class SingleSigAccountRegistry { $$$ connectProviderAccounts($_) { $$$ } $$$ }' src/evm/schemas/account.tsLength of output: 4703
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's search for both registry types and their method definitions # Search for SingleSigAccountRegistry echo "Searching SingleSigAccountRegistry..." rg "class SingleSigAccountRegistry" -A 10 # Search for SendingAccountRegistry echo "Searching SendingAccountRegistry..." rg "class SendingAccountRegistry" -A 10 # Search for any connectProviderAccounts method echo "Searching connectProviderAccounts method..." rg "connectProviderAccounts" -A 3Length of output: 2885
src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (1)
1-1: Verify the necessity of importing 'fs' from 'zx'Currently,
fsis being imported from"zx". Ensure that this is intentional and necessary for your use case. If the standard Node.jsfsmodule suffices, consider importingfsdirectly from"fs"to avoid potential confusion or unexpected behavior.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/utils/io.ts (2)
515-541: Address TODO: YAML comments preservation.The current implementation loses YAML comments during read/write operations. Consider using a YAML library that preserves comments and formatting, such as
yaml-ast-parseroryaml-boost.Would you like me to help implement a solution that preserves YAML comments and formatting? I can:
- Research and recommend the best YAML library for this use case
- Generate implementation code
- Create a GitHub issue to track this enhancement
460-462: Improve error message specificity.The current error message doesn't indicate which parameter is missing.
Apply this diff to make the error message more helpful:
if (!executor || !TX_INDEX) { - throw new Error('executor and txIndex must be provided'); + const missing = []; + if (!executor) missing.push('executor'); + if (!TX_INDEX) missing.push('txIndex'); + throw new Error(`Missing required parameters: ${missing.join(', ')}`); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- package.json (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (1 hunks)
- src/utils/io.ts (18 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- package.json
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts
🔇 Additional comments (5)
src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (5)
2-11: LGTM! Import changes align with the new account management system.The transition from
AccountRegistrytoSendingAccountRegistryand the addition of new utilities reflect the enhanced account management capabilities.
14-15: LGTM! Clean argument parsing with chainId support.
22-32: Add comprehensive error handling for account registry operations.The error handling concern from the previous review is still valid. Consider wrapping the registry operations in try-catch blocks for better error reporting.
39-45: LGTM! Robust chain ID validation with clear error messaging.The implementation properly validates the chain ID by comparing the provider's actual chain ID with the specified one, preventing cross-chain deployment issues.
47-58: Add validation for successful safe deployment.The deployment validation concern from the previous review is still valid. Consider adding post-deployment validation to ensure the contract was deployed successfully.
RnkSngh
force-pushed
the
raunak/add-l1-deploy-support
branch
from
9a96a5f to
b05296b
Compare
RnkSngh
force-pushed
the
raunak/add-l1-deploy-support
branch
from
b05296b to
5749918
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/utils/io.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-541: Consider implementing consistent error handling across the file.While the core functionality is well-implemented, the file would benefit from a more consistent approach to error handling. Consider:
- Using structured error types for different categories of errors (file not found, validation failed, etc.)
- Implementing consistent error logging patterns
- Avoiding the use of empty string returns to indicate errors
🛑 Comments failed to post (2)
src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (2)
35-51:
⚠️ Potential issueEnhance type safety in loadMultiple method
The method uses
anytype which reduces type safety. Consider using a more specific type for the registry parameter.Apply this diff to improve type safety:
- static loadMultiple(registryItems: { name: string; registry: any }[]) { + static loadMultiple(registryItems: { name: string; registry: EvmAccountsConfig[] }[]) { const result = new Registry< SendingAccountRegistry, - { name: string; registry: any } + { name: string; registry: EvmAccountsConfig[] } >([], {Additionally, consider adding error handling for invalid registry items.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
123-138:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd validation for account configuration
The function processes account configurations without validating the integrity of required fields.
Consider adding validation before processing each account:
if (isEvmAccounts(config)) { for (const account of config) { + if (!account.name) { + throw new Error(`Missing name in account configuration: ${JSON.stringify(account)}`); + } if (isMultisigConfig(account)) { + if (!account.privateKey) { + throw new Error(`Missing privateKey for multisig account: ${account.name}`); + } const wallet = createWallet({Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (1)
28-32: Enhance error message with account details.The error message could be more helpful by including the account identifier.
- throw new Error( - "Account read from yaml but isn't a multisig account that needs to be initialized." - ); + throw new Error( + `Account ${initiator} is not an uninitialized multisig account. Current type: ${multisigAccount.type}` + );src/tx.ts (1)
65-65: Enhance error message for unknown account types.While the account type handling is improved, the error message could be more descriptive to aid debugging.
Consider this improvement:
- throw new Error(`Unknown account type: ${account}`); + throw new Error(`Unknown account type. Expected MultisigWallet or Wallet, got: ${Object.prototype.constructor.name}`);Also applies to: 87-88, 121-122
src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (1)
1-152: Consider architectural improvements for production readiness.
Add comprehensive logging for security-sensitive operations:
- Log attempts to access private keys
- Track provider connection attempts
- Monitor keystore file access
Implement rate limiting for file system operations to prevent DoS attacks
Consider adding the following security measures:
- Memory zeroing after private key usage
- Encryption at rest for cached data
- Access control mechanisms for sensitive operations
Would you like assistance in implementing any of these architectural improvements?
src/deploy.ts (3)
42-55: Enhance function documentation.While the function implementation is good, the documentation could be more descriptive. Consider adding:
- Purpose: Why version-specific factory names are needed
- Parameters: Document expected format of
solcVersion- Return: Explain the format of the generated factory name
Example documentation:
/** * Generates a contract factory filename based on the factory name and Solidity version. * Used to support multiple Solidity compiler versions in foundry/hardhat projects. * * @param factoryName - The base name of the contract factory * @param solcVersion - Solidity version (e.g., "v0.8.15" or "0.8.15") * @returns Formatted factory filename (e.g., "MyContract0815__factory") */
87-87: Improve error message clarity.The error message now includes the factory file name, which is helpful. Consider also including the Solidity version in the error message for better debugging context.
- `cannot load contract factory for contract: ${factoryName} from factory file: ${contractFactoryFileName}` + `cannot load contract factory for contract: ${factoryName} from factory file: ${contractFactoryFileName} (Solidity version: ${solcVersion || 'default'})`
143-147: Enhance multisig error message.The error message could be more informative about why multisig wallets aren't supported for deployments.
- "Contract Deployments not supported for multisig wallets!" + "Contract deployments are not supported for multisig wallets. Please use a single-signature wallet for contract deployment operations."src/updateContract.ts (1)
49-49: Consider using aMapinstead of an object fornonces.Since
noncesis used to map addresses to nonces, consider using aMapinstead of a plain object. AMapprovides better performance for frequent additions and removals of key-value pairs, and it allows keys of any type, not just strings.Apply this diff to use a
Map:- const nonces: Record<string, number> = {}; // Maps addresses to nonces. Used to avoid nonce too low errors. + const nonces: Map<string, number> = new Map(); // Maps addresses to nonces. Used to avoid nonce too low errors.Make sure to update the usage of
noncesaccordingly throughout the codebase.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (17)
- package.json (1 hunks)
- src/deploy.ts (8 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/account.ts (2 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/contract.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (1 hunks)
- src/evm/schemas/wallet.ts (1 hunks)
- src/index.ts (2 hunks)
- src/multisig/safe.ts (0 hunks)
- src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/execute-multisig-tx.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/update-contracts-script.ts (1 hunks)
- src/scripts/verify-contract-script.ts (3 hunks)
- src/tx.ts (5 hunks)
- src/updateContract.ts (3 hunks)
- src/utils/constants.ts (1 hunks)
- src/utils/io.ts (18 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/multisig/safe.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (9)
- package.json
- src/evm/schemas/contract.ts
- src/evm/schemas/multisig.ts
- src/evm/schemas/wallet.ts
- src/index.ts
- src/scripts/execute-multisig-tx.ts
- src/scripts/update-contracts-script.ts
- src/scripts/verify-contract-script.ts
- src/utils/constants.ts
🔇 Additional comments (31)
src/scripts/deploy-multisig.ts (4)
22-24: Consider adding error handling for registry access.The
mustGetmethod will throw if the registry doesn't contain the expected accounts.
34-37: Enhance security in error messages.Avoid exposing sensitive information in error messages. Consider using a more generic message.
[security]- throw new Error(`Could not find private key for owner ${initiator}`); + throw new Error('Failed to retrieve credentials for the specified account');
47-52: Add validation for successful safe deployment.Consider adding validation to ensure the safe was deployed successfully before saving the address.
39-45: Consider potential chain ID changes.The chain ID check could fail if the RPC endpoint switches chains between checks. Consider caching the provider instance.
src/tx.ts (4)
3-3: LGTM! Import statements are well-organized.The new imports enhance type safety by introducing specific account registry types.
Also applies to: 5-5, 10-14
17-19: LGTM! Function signature update maintains backward compatibility.The addition of the
factoriesparameter with a default empty object ensures backward compatibility while enabling external factory support.Also applies to: 28-28
32-40: LGTM! Function signature changes enhance type safety.The union type
SingleSigAccountRegistry | SendingAccountRegistryprovides better type safety while maintaining flexibility.
44-47: Add validation for contract factory collisions.The current implementation could silently override base factories when merging. As noted in the previous review, validation should be added to prevent accidental overrides.
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if validation was added elsewhere in the codebase # Test: Search for any existing validation rg "Object\.keys.*ContractFactories.*throw"src/evm/schemas/sendingAccount.ts (7)
15-17: Fix inconsistent naming convention.Referencing the previous review comment about the inconsistent naming convention between
unInitializedMultisigandUninitializedMultisig. Please ensure consistent capitalization to prevent potential reference errors.
54-56: Enhance type safety in constructor parameters.Referencing the previous review comment about using
any[]for the config parameter. Please specify a precise type instead of usingany[]to enhance code reliability and maintainability.
65-78: Security vulnerability: Private key exposure in serialization.Referencing the previous review comment about the security concern in the
serializemethod. The method still includes private keys in the output, which poses a significant security risk.
80-90: Security vulnerability: Direct private key exposure.Referencing the previous review comment about the security concern in
getSinglePrivateKeyFromAccount. The method directly exposes private keys, which remains a significant security risk.
93-107: Avoid registry mutation during provider connection.Referencing the previous review comment about mutating registry entries in the
connectProviderAccountsmethod. Consider creating new instances instead of mutating existing ones to prevent unintended side effects.
112-119: Enhance error message clarity.Referencing the previous review comment about improving error messaging in the
loadSendingAccountsfunction to provide clearer feedback during parsing errors.
140-149: Add error handling for keystore file operations.Referencing the previous review comment about implementing error handling when reading keystore files to handle potential file system errors gracefully.
src/evm/schemas/account.ts (6)
6-15: LGTM! Good modularization of wallet-related functionality.The separation of wallet-related types and functions into a dedicated module improves code organization.
26-28: LGTM! Enhanced type safety with comprehensive account types.The schema now properly handles both single signature and multisig accounts through a well-defined union type.
33-44: LGTM! Improved type safety with 'unknown' type.The use of
unknowninstead ofanyand the more accurate naming improve type safety and code clarity.
47-67: LGTM! Class name now accurately reflects its responsibility.The rename from
AccountRegistrytoSingleSigAccountRegistrybetter represents the class's single responsibility principle.
89-100: LGTM with existing concerns.The implementation is functional but has previously identified security and deprecation concerns.
105-107: LGTM with existing concerns.The implementation is functional but has a previously identified security concern regarding error message content.
src/deploy.ts (3)
Line range hint
12-26: LGTM: Import changes enhance type safety.The replacement of generic
AccountRegistrywith specific registry types (SingleSigAccountRegistryandSendingAccountRegistry) improves type safety and better represents the account hierarchy.
Line range hint
1-186: Implementation aligns well with PR objectives.The changes successfully enhance the contract deployment workflow to support:
- External artifacts through
extraContractFactories- Multiple Solidity versions through
solcVersionhandling- Specific account registry types for better type safety
The implementation is robust with appropriate error handling and maintains backward compatibility.
106-106: Verify integration of external contract factories.The addition of
extraContractFactoriesaligns with the PR objective to support external artifacts. Let's verify its usage across the codebase.Also applies to: 111-114
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response as the usage pattern is clear and consistent across the codebase.
extraContractFactoriesintegration is properly implementedThe integration is consistent across the codebase:
- Defined as an optional parameter in
updateContract.ts- Correctly merged with
vibcContractFactoriesin bothtx.tsanddeploy.ts- Properly handled in CLI script (
update-contracts-script.ts) with dynamic import support🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other occurrences of extraContractFactories to ensure consistent integration # Test 1: Search for extraContractFactories usage echo "Searching for extraContractFactories usage:" rg "extraContractFactories" -A 3 # Test 2: Search for contract factory merging patterns echo "Searching for contract factory merging patterns:" rg "contractFactories\s*=\s*\{" -A 3Length of output: 2876
src/utils/io.ts (1)
221-228:⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for missing factory constructor.
The function assumes the factory constructor and its ABI will always exist, which could lead to runtime errors.
Apply this diff to add proper error handling:
export async function readFactoryAbi( factoryName: string, contractFactories: Record<string, any> ) { const contractFactoryConstructor = contractFactories[`${factoryName}__factory`]; + if (!contractFactoryConstructor) { + throw new Error(`Factory constructor not found for ${factoryName}`); + } + if (!contractFactoryConstructor.abi) { + throw new Error(`ABI not found in factory constructor for ${factoryName}`); + } return contractFactoryConstructor.abi; }Likely invalid or redundant comment.
src/updateContract.ts (6)
15-20: LGTM!The restructuring of function parameters into an
optionsobject of typeUpdateContractsOptssimplifies the function signature and improves parameter management. TheextraContractFactoriesproperty is typed asRecord<string, object>, which is acceptable for now, considering theextraContractFactoriesis an optional parameter.Also applies to: 29-34
31-31: The comment forforceDeployNewContractshas been corrected to accurately reflect its behavior. No further action is needed.
36-41: LGTM!The changes in this section, including the destructuring of the
optionsobject and the direct call toconnectProviderAccountsonaccountRegistry, streamline the code and maintain its functionality.Also applies to: 52-52
61-61: LGTM!The change in this line, where
envis assigned the result ofreadAccountsIntoEnv, aligns with the modifications in theaccountRegistrytype and maintains the functionality of reading rendered accounts into the environment.
104-105: Verify the usage ofextraContractFactoriesinsendTx.The
sendTxfunction has been updated to accept theextraContractFactoriesparameter. Ensure that thesendTximplementation correctly mergesextraContractFactorieswith the existing contract factories and utilizes them as intended.Run the following script to analyze the usage of
extraContractFactoriesinsendTx:#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `extraContractFactories` in `sendTx`. # Test: Search for the `sendTx` function definition. ast-grep --pattern $'function sendTx($_, $_, $_, $_, $_, $_, $_, $_, $_) { $$$ }'Review the retrieved
sendTximplementation to confirm the proper handling ofextraContractFactories.
4-4: Verify the usage ofSingleSigAccountRegistryandSendingAccountRegistryin the codebase.The
accountRegistryparameter's type has been changed to a union type ofSingleSigAccountRegistry | SendingAccountRegistry. This change enhances type specificity. However, it's important to ensure that all calls toupdateContractsForChainprovide an argument that matches this new type.Run the following script to verify the usage:
Also applies to: 25-25
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can generate the final response as I have enough information to verify the concern.
The usage of
SingleSigAccountRegistry | SendingAccountRegistrytype is consistent across the codebaseAll calls to
updateContractsForChainuseaccounts.mustGet(chain.chainName)which returns the correct registry type. This is verified in:
src/scripts/fork-deployment-test.tssrc/scripts/update-contracts-script.tsAdditionally, the same type union is used consistently in other related functions like
sendTx()insrc/tx.ts, confirming this is a valid type change that maintains type safety across the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all calls to `updateContractsForChain` provide an argument of type `SingleSigAccountRegistry` or `SendingAccountRegistry`. # Test: Search for the function calls. Expect: Only calls with the correct argument type. rg -A 5 $'updateContractsForChain\('Length of output: 5683
| export const parseMultisigInitArgsFromCLI = async () => { | ||
| const argv1 = await yargs(hideBin(process.argv)).argv; | ||
| const rpcUrl = (argv1.RPC_URL as string) || RPC_URL; | ||
| const owners = argv1.OWNERS as string[]; | ||
| const threshold = argv1.THRESHOLD as number; | ||
| const initiator = argv1.INITIATOR as string; | ||
| const accountsSpecPath = | ||
| (argv1.ACCOUNTS_SPECS_PATH as string) || ACCOUNTS_SPECS_PATH; | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: validate args | ||
| (argv1.ACCOUNT_SPECS_PATH as string) || ACCOUNT_SPECS_PATH; | ||
| const chainId = (argv1.CHAIN_ID as number) || CHAIN_ID; | ||
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| rpcUrl, | ||
| owners, | ||
| initiator, | ||
| accountsSpecPath, | ||
| threshold, | ||
| chainId, | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add validation for required parameters in parseMultisigInitArgsFromCLI.
The function should validate that required parameters (initiator) are provided before returning.
Apply this diff to add validation:
export const parseMultisigInitArgsFromCLI = async () => {
const argv1 = await yargs(hideBin(process.argv)).argv;
const rpcUrl = (argv1.RPC_URL as string) || RPC_URL;
const initiator = argv1.INITIATOR as string;
const accountsSpecPath =
(argv1.ACCOUNT_SPECS_PATH as string) || ACCOUNT_SPECS_PATH;
const chainId = (argv1.CHAIN_ID as number) || CHAIN_ID;
+ if (!initiator) {
+ throw new Error('INITIATOR parameter is required');
+ }
+
return {
rpcUrl,
initiator,
accountsSpecPath,
chainId,
};
};📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| export const parseMultisigInitArgsFromCLI = async () => { | |
| const argv1 = await yargs(hideBin(process.argv)).argv; | |
| const rpcUrl = (argv1.RPC_URL as string) || RPC_URL; | |
| const owners = argv1.OWNERS as string[]; | |
| const threshold = argv1.THRESHOLD as number; | |
| const initiator = argv1.INITIATOR as string; | |
| const accountsSpecPath = | |
| (argv1.ACCOUNTS_SPECS_PATH as string) || ACCOUNTS_SPECS_PATH; | |
| // TODO: validate args | |
| (argv1.ACCOUNT_SPECS_PATH as string) || ACCOUNT_SPECS_PATH; | |
| const chainId = (argv1.CHAIN_ID as number) || CHAIN_ID; | |
| return { | |
| rpcUrl, | |
| owners, | |
| initiator, | |
| accountsSpecPath, | |
| threshold, | |
| chainId, | |
| }; | |
| export const parseMultisigInitArgsFromCLI = async () => { | |
| const argv1 = await yargs(hideBin(process.argv)).argv; | |
| const rpcUrl = (argv1.RPC_URL as string) || RPC_URL; | |
| const initiator = argv1.INITIATOR as string; | |
| const accountsSpecPath = | |
| (argv1.ACCOUNT_SPECS_PATH as string) || ACCOUNT_SPECS_PATH; | |
| const chainId = (argv1.CHAIN_ID as number) || CHAIN_ID; | |
| if (!initiator) { | |
| throw new Error('INITIATOR parameter is required'); | |
| } | |
| return { | |
| rpcUrl, | |
| initiator, | |
| accountsSpecPath, | |
| chainId, | |
| }; | |
| }; |
@zhengyangfeng00 Added support for allowing deploying external contracts in our in-js code, but this PR adds support for integrating this functionality through our bin scripts run using
npxSummary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
readArtifactFilefunction to accept a Solidity compiler version for better artifact management.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Style
Chores
4.0.5to4.0.7.