fix: support depositAndCall and withdrawAndCall with empty message
#3018
+1,632
−503
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
lumtis
added
V2_TESTS
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #3018 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 66.25% 64.48% -1.78%
===========================================
Files 406 409 +3
Lines 22772 28630 +5858
===========================================
+ Hits 15088 18462 +3374
- Misses 6907 9373 +2466
- Partials 777 795 +18
|
skosito
reviewed
Oct 17, 2024
| @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ | |||
| * [2853](https://github.com/zeta-chain/node/pull/2853) - calling precompile through sc with sc state update | |||
| * [2925](https://github.com/zeta-chain/node/pull/2925) - add recover to init chainer to diplay informative message when starting a node from block 1 | |||
| * [2909](https://github.com/zeta-chain/node/pull/2909) - add legacy messages back to codec for querier backward compatibility | |||
| * [3018](https://github.com/zeta-chain/node/pull/3018) - support `DepositAndCall` and `WithdrawAndCall` with empty payload | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldnt this be DepositedAndCalled and WithdrawedAndCalled?
| @@ -190,7 +199,7 @@ func (r *E2ERunner) V2ZEVMToEMVAuthenticatedCall( | |||
| return tx | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // V2ZEVMToEMVCall calls authenticated Call of Gateway on ZEVM through contract | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
also did some renaming on these tests in my PR
|
|
||
| // this field describes if a smart contract call should be made for a inbound | ||
| // with assets only used for protocol contract version 2 | ||
| bool is_cross_chain_call = 12; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure about this name, especially because it is i crosschain proto, maybe can reflect assets in the name?
if we need to keep it, maybe we can add a bit more in comment, and make comment same for proto below
| types.ProtocolContractVersion_V2, | ||
| event.CallOptions.IsArbitraryCall, | ||
| types.WithZEVMRevertOptions(event.RevertOptions), | ||
| types.WithCrossChainCall(true), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in this case its true no matter of message lenght right? maybe we can add comment
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Currently both would be interpreted as normal dpeosit or withdraw
This PR fix this with using a new field in the inbound and a new type of event in the gateway contracts
Smart contract associated PR: zeta-chain/protocol-contracts#403