fix: EREP-015 rule Paymaster opsSeen decrement #905
Conversation
shunsukew
requested review from
dancoombs,
dphilipson,
0xfourzerofour,
alex-miao and
andysim3d
as code owners
shunsukew
force-pushed
the
fix-erep-015
branch
from
58d178b
to
d4c23aa
Compare
shunsukew
changed the title
| .. | ||
| }) => { | ||
| // [EREP-015] If user operations error derived from factory or account, paymaster opsSeen amendment is required. | ||
| let re = Regex::new(r"^AA[21]").unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as what reference implementation does.
https://github.com/eth-infinitism/bundler/blob/8bc5028caaf2b380c12e057110f9bba950e49b09/packages/bundler/src/modules/BundleManager.ts#L353
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of bringing in regex, can we keep the same pattern that we use above? Something like
paymaster_amendment_required |= matches!(&message[..3], "AA1" | "AA2")
shunsukew
changed the title
| .. | ||
| }) => { | ||
| // [EREP-015] If user operations error derived from factory or account, paymaster opsSeen amendment is required. | ||
| let re = Regex::new(r"^AA[21]").unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of bringing in regex, can we keep the same pattern that we use above? Something like
paymaster_amendment_required |= matches!(&message[..3], "AA1" | "AA2")
| if !entity.is_paymaster() { | ||
| warn!( | ||
| "Attempted to add EREP-015 paymaster amendment for non-paymaster entity: {:?}", | ||
| entity | ||
| ); | ||
| return; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should use an assert! instead of a log here as this indicates a coding error.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| if !entity.is_paymaster() { | |
| warn!( | |
| "Attempted to add EREP-015 paymaster amendment for non-paymaster entity: {:?}", | |
| entity | |
| ); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| assert!(entity.is_paymaster(), "Attempted to add EREP-015 paymaster amendment for non-paymaster entity") |
| update_type: EntityUpdateType::PaymasterAmendment, | ||
| }, | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[cfg(test)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a test for this case?
[Closes/Fixes] #904
Proposed Changes