Skip to content
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: deploy pzEth staging #5079

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

feat: deploy pzEth staging #5079

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

ltyu
Copy link
Contributor

@ltyu ltyu commented Dec 26, 2024

Description

Drive-by changes

Related issues

Backward compatibility

Testing

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Dec 26, 2024

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 4a37858

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 26, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.53%. Comparing base (234704d) to head (4a37858).
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5079   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.53%   77.53%           
=======================================
  Files         103      103           
  Lines        2110     2110           
  Branches      190      190           
=======================================
  Hits         1636     1636           
  Misses        453      453           
  Partials       21       21           
Components Coverage Δ
core 87.80% <ø> (ø)
hooks 79.39% <ø> (ø)
isms 83.68% <ø> (ø)
token 91.27% <ø> (ø)
middlewares 79.80% <ø> (ø)

Comment on lines +146 to +159
// TODO DEPLOY REAL ONES
const stagingSafes = {
ethereum: '0xA9421c6F339eC414b7e77449986bE9C2Ae430C25',
bsc: '0xA9421c6F339eC414b7e77449986bE9C2Ae430C25',
arbitrum: '0xA9421c6F339eC414b7e77449986bE9C2Ae430C25',
optimism: '0xA9421c6F339eC414b7e77449986bE9C2Ae430C25',
blast: '0xA9421c6F339eC414b7e77449986bE9C2Ae430C25',
linea: '0xA9421c6F339eC414b7e77449986bE9C2Ae430C25',
base: '0xA9421c6F339eC414b7e77449986bE9C2Ae430C25',
mode: '0xf40b75fb85C3bEc70D75A1B45ef08FC48Db61115',
swell: '0xf40b75fb85C3bEc70D75A1B45ef08FC48Db61115',
fraxtal: '0xf40b75fb85C3bEc70D75A1B45ef08FC48Db61115',
zircuit: '0xf40b75fb85C3bEc70D75A1B45ef08FC48Db61115',
};
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe overly optimistic but I feel like we dont need to test with safes and fine to use the deployer key as owner?

Comment on lines -40 to -48
const existingProxyAdmins: ChainMap<{ address: string; owner: string }> = {
ethereum: {
address: '0x4f4671Ce69c9af15e33eB7Cf6D1358d1B39Af3bF',
owner: '0xD1e6626310fD54Eceb5b9a51dA2eC329D6D4B68A',
},
zircuit: {
address: '0x8b789B4A56675240c9f0985B467752b870c75711',
owner: '0x8410927C286A38883BC23721e640F31D3E3E79F8',
},
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why was this removed?

Comment on lines +81 to +135
const tokenConfig = Object.fromEntries<HypTokenRouterConfig>(
await Promise.all(
chainsToDeploy.map(
async (chain): Promise<[string, HypTokenRouterConfig]> => {
const addresses = await registry.getChainAddresses(chain);
assert(addresses, 'No addresses in Registry');
const { mailbox } = addresses;

const mailboxContract = Mailbox__factory.connect(
mailbox,
multiProvider.getProvider(chain),
);
const defaultHook = await mailboxContract.defaultHook();
const ret: [string, HypTokenRouterConfig] = [
chain,
{
isNft: false,
type:
chain === lockboxChain
? TokenType.XERC20Lockbox
: TokenType.XERC20,
token: chain === lockboxChain ? lockbox : xERC20,
owner: pzEthSafes[chain],
gas: warpRouteOverheadGas,
mailbox,
interchainSecurityModule: {
type: IsmType.AGGREGATION,
threshold: 2,
modules: [
{
type: IsmType.ROUTING,
owner: pzEthSafes[chain],
domains: buildAggregationIsmConfigs(
chain,
chainsToDeploy,
pzEthValidators,
),
},
{
type: IsmType.FALLBACK_ROUTING,
domains: {},
owner: pzEthSafes[chain],
},
],
},
hook: getRenzoHook(defaultHook, chain),
proxyAdmin: existingProxyAdmins[chain],
},
];

return ret;
},
),
),
);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why is this changing so much?
can we have 1 PR just to setup staging with an identical config and a separate PR for value changes?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: In Review
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants