feat: zksync support #4725
feat: zksync support #4725
Conversation
…to feat/zksync-signer-strategy
…n for ZKSync signer strategy
…to feat/zksync-signer-strategy
ljankovic-txfusion
force-pushed
the
feat/zksync-support
branch
from
1bcbdc4 to
b58434e
Compare
|
|
mshojaei-txfusion
force-pushed
the
feat/zksync-support
branch
from
b58434e to
b7e3c81
Compare
…o feat/zksync-support
| @@ -927,9 +928,10 @@ export class EvmHookModule extends HyperlaneModule< | |||
| // deploy fallback hook | |||
| const fallbackHook = await this.deploy({ config: config.fallback }); | |||
| // deploy routing hook with fallback | |||
| routingHook = await this.deployer.deployContract( | |||
| routingHook = await this.deployer.deployContractWithName( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
by default deployContract just uses the enum value, but here the enum value doesn't match the actual contract name (hence the type->name mapping)
its also non trivial to just change the enum because it affects other places, i hit this once before with the ism factory
| @@ -30,7 +31,7 @@ export enum ChainTechnicalStack { | |||
| OpStack = 'opstack', | |||
| PolygonCDK = 'polygoncdk', | |||
| PolkadotSubstrate = 'polkadotsubstrate', | |||
| ZkSync = 'zksync', | |||
| ZKSync = 'zksync', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: can we we keep this as ZkSync and update all the ZKSync -> ZkSync for naming elsewhere as well for consistency?
imo it should generally be ZkXYZ rather than ZKXYZ, @ltyu wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We sure can, but zksync did the rebranding and is actually the owner of "ZK" trademark, so at the end the value should be ZKsync. But at the end it really doesn't matter, whatever you guys prefer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no opinions here. if it doesn't impact anything, then i'm okay with the change.
|
|
||
| import { Annotated, ProtocolType } from '@hyperlane-xyz/utils'; | ||
|
|
||
| export enum ProviderType { | ||
| ZKSync = 'zksync', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ditto depending on the outcome of the ZKSync -> ZkSync comment earlier
…ain and artifacts exports
|
|
||
| // For static ISM types it checks whether the technical stack supports static contract deployment | ||
| assert( | ||
| !isIsmStatic[ismType] || isStaticDeploymentSupported(technicalStack), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is there a difference between this cond and isIsmCompatible()?
Description
This PR introduces a series of changes aimed at enhancing zkSync support within the codebase. Key updates include the addition of the zksolc compiler for zkSync, integration of contract artifacts, CLI automation for core deployment, and compatibility adjustments in tests for the zkSync environment. It also includes improvements in contract verification on zkSync explorer and handling gas limits for zkSync deployments.
Drive-by changes
Related issues
No related issue
Backward compatibility
Yes
Testing
Manual testing and some automated tests were performed, including end-to-end tests on zkSync for warp read and apply functionalities.