Require rewards - partial: Updates to contracts and clients #137
Conversation
contracts/contracts/Utilities.sol
Outdated
| pragma solidity >=0.8.0 <0.9.0; | ||
| pragma abicoder v2; | ||
|
|
||
| contract Utilities { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No a huge fan of this name, very generic. Maybe Functions, FunctionsUtilities instead?
We could also add this to an existing contract such as VerificationGateway or BLSExpander so we can avoid another contract deploy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm. They're very generic utilities though. In fact I'm kinda hoping this already exists in some form and we can use that instead of this.
Anyway, I renamed it to AggregatorUtilities. Wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could also add this to an existing contract such as VerificationGateway or BLSExpander so we can avoid another contract deploy.
Adding to VerificationGateway would increase the audit burden (and complexity that may be considered by users) though.
For BLSExpander, it really doesn't fit. That contract is about compressing calldata for processBundle.
Also, this may be out of date, but I believe there was some concern about the maximum allowed size of a contract and pushing up against that limit.
Is there much benefit in avoiding a contract deploy? Is it more efficient to deploy A+B functions into one contract than A functions into contract A and B functions into contract B?
contracts/contracts/Utilities.sol
Outdated
| bytes returnValue; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function performSequence( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be good to have NatSpec comments/docs for this function and contract. Can do this as follow up.
Co-authored-by: Jacob Caban-Tomski <jacque006@users.noreply.github.com>
What is this PR doing?
This PR contributes to the larger work to require rewards in the aggregator.
That work is built on top of these changes to contracts, and clients - most importantly the new
Utilitiescontract and its bindings.That's not everything though, so here's a list:
Utilitiescontract with two methodsperformSequencewhich takes a sequence of functions to call and returns all their results. This will allow the aggregator to test a sequence of bundles and figure out the rewards for each bundle resulting from executing in that sequence.ethBalanceOfreturns the eth balance of a contract to allow this to be represented as a function call so you can use it withperformSequence. (For tokens, you can use the function call already, but there isn't one for eth).callStaticSequenceandcallStaticSequenceWithMeasureinEthereumServicewhich provides an additional layer aroundperformSequenceallowing decoded types to be extracted (rather than the byte arrays that are actually returned byperformSequenceFixtureHow can these changes be manually tested?
Does this PR resolve or contribute to any issues?
Contributes to #133.
Checklist
Guidelines
resolve conversationbutton is for reviewers, not authors