fix(configs): Refactor contracts config #3660
Open
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
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Deniallugo
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Deniallugo
force-pushed
the
deniallugo-contracts-config-refactoring
branch
from
d30c61f to
2cd7b6b
Compare
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Deniallugo
force-pushed
the
deniallugo-contracts-config-refactoring
branch
from
0fd3fd4 to
62d7129
Compare
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
perekopskiy
reviewed
Mar 4, 2025
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Deniallugo
force-pushed
the
deniallugo-contracts-config-refactoring
branch
from
7247fa0 to
b0c9be8
Compare
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Deniallugo
force-pushed
the
deniallugo-contracts-config-refactoring
branch
from
c39056e to
1d898b0
Compare
…-config-refactoring
Deniallugo
force-pushed
the
deniallugo-contracts-config-refactoring
branch
from
174f7aa to
cf094e2
Compare
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Deniallugo
force-pushed
the
deniallugo-contracts-config-refactoring
branch
from
af0626e to
0609c50
Compare
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Deniallugo
force-pushed
the
deniallugo-contracts-config-refactoring
branch
from
fdc561e to
6638eee
Compare
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
Deniallugo
force-pushed
the
deniallugo-contracts-config-refactoring
branch
from
23f33d7 to
322346b
Compare
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
## What ❔ <!-- What are the changes this PR brings about? --> <!-- Example: This PR adds a PR template to the repo. --> <!-- (For bigger PRs adding more context is appreciated) --> ## Why ❔ <!-- Why are these changes done? What goal do they contribute to? What are the principles behind them? --> <!-- The `Why` has to be clear to non-Matter Labs entities running their own ZK Chain --> <!-- Example: PR templates ensure PR reviewers, observers, and future iterators are in context about the evolution of repos. --> ## Is this a breaking change? - [ ] Yes - [ ] No ## Operational changes <!-- Any config changes? Any new flags? Any changes to any scripts? --> <!-- Please add anything that non-Matter Labs entities running their own ZK Chain may need to know --> ## Checklist <!-- Check your PR fulfills the following items. --> <!-- For draft PRs check the boxes as you complete them. --> - [ ] PR title corresponds to the body of PR (we generate changelog entries from PRs). - [ ] Tests for the changes have been added / updated. - [ ] Documentation comments have been added / updated. - [ ] Code has been formatted via `zkstack dev fmt` and `zkstack dev lint`. --------- Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
kelemeno
reviewed
Mar 7, 2025
| #[derive(Debug, Clone)] | ||
| pub struct SettlementLayerContracts { | ||
| l1_contracts: ChainSpecificContracts, | ||
| gateway_contracts: Option<ChainSpecificContracts>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
l2Contracts overlaps, no? In gateway_contracts and l1_contracts
kelemeno
reviewed
Mar 7, 2025
| diamond_proxy_contract_address: self.contracts_config.diamond_proxy_addr, | ||
| chain_admin_contract_address: Some(self.contracts_config.chain_admin_addr), | ||
| diamond_proxy_contract_address: input | ||
| .contracts_resource |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
here it was changed from L1 to GW, and for the chainAdmin as well
kelemeno
reviewed
Mar 7, 2025
|
|
||
| #[derive(Debug, FromContext)] | ||
| #[context(crate = crate)] | ||
| pub struct Input { | ||
| pub master_pool: PoolResource<MasterPool>, | ||
| pub main_node_client: MainNodeClientResource, | ||
| pub l1_client: EthInterfaceResource, | ||
| pub gateway_client: Option<GatewayEthInterfaceResource>, | ||
| pub gateway_client: UniversalClientResource, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't it be settlment_layer_client? i.e. it is for l1 or gw client, no?
kelemeno
reviewed
Mar 7, 2025
core/node/node_framework/src/implementations/layers/settlement_layer_data.rs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
kelemeno
reviewed
Mar 7, 2025
| @@ -72,16 +69,6 @@ impl WiringLayer for QueryEthClientLayer { | |||
| } else { | |||
| None | |||
| }, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why did you get rid of this? We need to watch the GW for EthWatch component. Or did you add it back somewhere else?
We need to watch both L1 and GW
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah its in query_gateway_client I think
kelemeno
reviewed
Mar 7, 2025
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[async_trait::async_trait] | ||
| impl WiringLayer for GatewayClientLayer { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably rename to SLClientLayer? If it is a GatewayClient it cannot be an L1 client
Signed-off-by: Danil <[email protected]>
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.
What ❔
Refactor contracts config and moving it to framework. Also it support both layers Gateway and L1, allowing to automatically decide what layer supposed to be used now.
Why ❔
In the future the contracts config will be loaded from Settlement Layer. It's the preparation, where no components depends on the contracts config directly.
Is this a breaking change?
Operational changes
Checklist
zkstack dev fmtandzkstack dev lint.