feat: zksync support #4725
feat: zksync support #4725
Conversation
…txfusion/sending-messages
…perlane core deploy` command
mshojaei-txfusion
requested review from
jmrossy,
yorhodes,
ltyu,
paulbalaji,
tkporter and
aroralanuk
as code owners
|
| export const HookTypeToContractNameMap: Record< | ||
| Exclude<HookType, HookType.CUSTOM>, | ||
| string | ||
| > = { | ||
| [HookType.MERKLE_TREE]: 'merkleTreeHook', | ||
| [HookType.INTERCHAIN_GAS_PAYMASTER]: 'interchainGasPaymaster', | ||
| [HookType.AGGREGATION]: 'staticAggregationHook', | ||
| [HookType.PROTOCOL_FEE]: 'protocolFee', | ||
| [HookType.OP_STACK]: 'opStackHook', | ||
| [HookType.ROUTING]: 'domainRoutingHook', | ||
| [HookType.FALLBACK_ROUTING]: 'fallbackDomainRoutingHook', | ||
| [HookType.PAUSABLE]: 'pausableHook', | ||
| [HookType.ARB_L2_TO_L1]: 'arbL2ToL1Hook', | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thank you so much - this has been on my wishlist for so long and it's great to have it fixed finally
| ): Promise<any> { | ||
| const { apiUrl, family } = this.multiProvider.getExplorerApi(chain); | ||
|
|
||
| const url = new URL(apiUrl); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see we're not switching on the explorer type anymore here, has this verifier been tested against the zksync instance of blockscout? https://zksync.blockscout.com/
would be good to check against zksync etherscan too https://era.zksync.network/
| @@ -415,6 +420,7 @@ export class EvmIsmModule extends HyperlaneModule< | |||
| factory: new TrustedRelayerIsm__factory(), | |||
| contractName: IsmType.TRUSTED_RELAYER, | |||
| constructorArgs: [this.args.addresses.mailbox, config.relayer], | |||
| implementationAddress: undefined, | |||
| // TODO: handle logging part | ||
| protected async deployStorageMessageIdMultisigIsm({ | ||
| config, | ||
| logger, | ||
| }: { | ||
| config: MultisigIsmConfig; | ||
| logger: Logger; | ||
| }): Promise<IMultisigIsm> { | ||
| const signer = this.multiProvider.getSigner(this.chain); | ||
|
|
||
| const contract = await this.deployer.deployContractFromFactory({ | ||
| chain: this.chain, | ||
| factory: new StorageMessageIdMultisigIsm__factory(), | ||
| contractName: IsmType.STORAGE_MESSAGE_ID_MULTISIG, | ||
| constructorArgs: [config.validators, config.threshold], | ||
| }); | ||
| return IMultisigIsm__factory.connect(contract.address, signer); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: handle logging part | ||
| protected async deployStorageMultisigIsm({ | ||
| config, | ||
| logger, | ||
| }: { | ||
| config: MultisigIsmConfig; | ||
| logger: Logger; | ||
| }): Promise<IMultisigIsm> { | ||
| const signer = this.multiProvider.getSigner(this.chain); | ||
|
|
||
| const contract = await this.deployer.deployContractFromFactory({ | ||
| chain: this.chain, | ||
| factory: new StorageMerkleRootMultisigIsm__factory(), | ||
| contractName: IsmType.STORAGE_MERKLE_ROOT_MULTISIG, | ||
| constructorArgs: [config.validators, config.threshold], | ||
| }); | ||
| return IMultisigIsm__factory.connect(contract.address, signer); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd combine these two into a single deployStorageMultisigIsm fn, similar to what the deployMultisigIsm function does below
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.