V0.1.0 #5

pegahcarter · 2024-10-30T21:22:12Z

No description provided.

* deploy MockReceiver * feat: store sender * chore: fmt

* feat: unwrap frxEth * fix: outdated references * fix: receive ether * chore: fmt * chore: rm counter * chore: fmt * chore(build): comment out test

* feat: support all 6 OFTs * feat: support all 6 OFTs * feat: swapAndSend() * fix(swapAndSend): send ETH, refund extra, wrap frxETH * chore: fmt

pegahcarter · 2024-10-30T21:24:35Z

src/script/SubmitSendWithCompose.s.sol

+
+    // address oft = 0x909DBdE1eBE906Af95660033e478D59EFe831fED; // Base FRAX OFT
+    address oft = 0xF010a7c8877043681D59AD125EbF575633505942; // Base frxETH OFT
+    address swapMock = 0x60356998558A466Ec51BdE7e78F3b88Bdc843c5e; // Fraxtal MockReceiver


This is the MockReceiver contract using a different variable name here. This specific contract was used to test bridging wfrxETH from a different chain to Fraxtal and atomically swapping and unwrapping to the recipient. You can see the test tx here.

pegahcarter · 2024-10-30T21:25:24Z

src/script/SubmitSendWithCompose.s.sol

I used this script to test sending from a different chain to Fraxtal with the composed arguments which are passed into MockReceiver.lzCompose().

pegahcarter · 2024-10-30T21:27:50Z

src/contracts/MockReceiver.sol

+    /// @param _message The encoded message content in the format of the OFTComposeMsgCodec.
+    /// @param /*Executor*/ Executor address (unused in this mock).
+    /// @param /*Executor Data*/ Additional data for checking for a specific executor (unused in this mock).
+    function lzCompose(


Note that this is the entry point for receiving a bridge tx from another chain. The process is actually two transactions:

OFT is minted to this contract (does not callback).

Endpoint calls lzCompose() with the composed message sent with the OFT. At this point, (1) is already executed so the OFT balance should be held within this contract.

pegahcarter · 2024-10-30T21:35:06Z

src/contracts/MockReceiver.sol

+    address public immutable endpoint;
+
+    address public fraxOft = 0x80Eede496655FB9047dd39d9f418d5483ED600df;
+    address public fraxCurve = 0x53f8F4e154F68C2D29a0D06BD50f82bCf1bd95dB;


Note that all curves have the same "a" factor of 1400.

tom2o17

Looks good just some general documentation of the expected flow would be great.

Also some foundry tests would be greatly appreciated.

I am aware that full E2E testing is not possible given the L0 contracts are dependent on their own service.

However, when I was writting tests for the axelar bridge back in the day it is possible to impersonate/vm.load/deal() the destination chain L0 interaction w/n the test case.

This way you can have foundry test cases which cover the happy path in which the off chain service works as expected.

Otherwise looks good would just kill the // TODOs, document the general interaction flow, and then add some test coverage.

tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T15:52:40Z

src/contracts/FraxtalStorage.sol

+
+import { FraxtalL2 } from "src/contracts/chain-constants/FraxtalL2.sol";
+
+contract FraxtalStorage {


Nit: Can we can we rename to FraxtalConstants

Storage implies that the location in which these variables are stored and given they are constants, they are embedded in the bytecode as opposed to storage

tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T15:56:36Z

src/contracts/FraxtalStorage.sol

+// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
+
+import { FraxtalL2 } from "src/contracts/chain-constants/FraxtalL2.sol";


Nit can we just hardcode the 5 imported variables in this file.

Two reasons for this preference.

Ease of verification: If the imported file changes it will make verification difficult.

Info Leak: The whole FraxtalL2 constants file will be published on the explorer if this is used.

tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T16:01:01Z

src/contracts/FraxProxy.sol

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+//SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
+


NIT: Can we add the FRAX ascii

tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T16:02:25Z

src/contracts/amos/EthereumLZSenderAMO.sol

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
+


tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T16:04:24Z

src/contracts/amos/EthereumLZSenderAMO.sol

+        IERC20(token).approve(_oApp, amount);
+        IOFT(_oApp).send{ value: fee.nativeFee }(sendParam, fee, payable(address(this)));
+    }
+


Nit: consider a rescue function.

Not necessary bc upgradable but nice to have

tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T16:11:00Z

src/contracts/composers/FraxtalLZCurveComposer.sol

@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
+


tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T16:11:26Z

src/contracts/composers/FraxtalLZCurveComposer.sol

+
+import { FraxtalStorage, FraxtalL2 } from "src/contracts/FraxtalStorage.sol";
+
+interface ICurve {


Nit: Shared Interface Folder, or at end of file

tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T16:13:45Z

src/contracts/amos/FraxtalLZCurveAMO.sol

+    }
+
+    // TODO: AC
+    function sendToFerry(address _oApp, uint256 _amount) external {


Probably AC

tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T16:13:56Z

src/contracts/amos/FraxtalLZCurveAMO.sol

+        // TODO: now what
+    }
+
+    // TODO: AC


tom2o17 · 2024-11-11T16:19:43Z

src/contracts/composers/FraxtalLZCurveComposer.sol

+        }
+    }
+    constructor() {
+        _disableInitializers();


Discussion: I think we may be over fitting for upgradability on these contracts.

We have a setter for this variable w/n src/contracts/amos/FraxtalLZCurveAMO.sol

I am curious as to the motivation behind the choice of having proxies and then settable variables referencing said proxies.

You may be right that some of these contracts don't need to be upgradeable.

Part of the reason behind proxies is because of the Frax Vision 2030: I don't know if contract addresses or wrap-ability will change of tokens so I'd like to keep the contracts flexible in case there's a difference in contract functionality. Ultimately, I want to reduce the need to re-deploy and making the contracts slightly more complicated is worth it IMO. Do you think there would be a security concern from users in using non-immutable contracts here?

The setters within FraxtalLZCurveAMO are needed because of the operations flow: the Ethereum contracts need the Fraxtal AMO address and the Fraxtal AMO needs the Ethereum addresses. Which means we have to call setters on one side to fully plug together the contracts (unless we went with create2 pre-determined addresses but I don't believe that's necessary here).

pegahcarter · 2024-11-11T19:07:53Z

@tom2o17

Otherwise looks good would just kill the // TODOs, document the general interaction flow, and then add some test coverage.

Sounds good. I'm realizing that flow charts are needed here now and will get those built out. The TODOs will slowly disappear well.

Regarding the tests, there's some fancy calldata that gets sent around by L0 which may be hard to impersonate. I'll do some testing in prod and then replicate the txs in foundry. Does that work?

pegahcarter added 4 commits October 18, 2024 15:49

deploy MockReceiver (#1)

b2e1650

* deploy MockReceiver * feat: store sender * chore: fmt

test: initial swap on bridge tx (#2)

78d9d6d

feat: unwrap frxEth (#3)

18aaa31

* feat: unwrap frxEth * fix: outdated references * fix: receive ether * chore: fmt * chore: rm counter * chore: fmt * chore(build): comment out test

Feat/swap and send (#4)

08247c8

* feat: support all 6 OFTs * feat: support all 6 OFTs * feat: swapAndSend() * fix(swapAndSend): send ETH, refund extra, wrap frxETH * chore: fmt

pegahcarter commented Oct 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

pegahcarter added 13 commits October 31, 2024 11:17

fix: rm exchange amountOut requirement

9ea542c

feat: upgradeable MockReceiver

49d5884

feat: estimateAmountToRebalance()

3c19b9d

refactor: passable min pct required to rebalance

c5ec8c0

feat: submitSendWithCompose in TS

f76f635

chore: rename MockReceiver, name variables

7a22cf7

chore: missing file rename

ea857e9

chore: mispelled filename

ace1d40

feat: EthereumNativeBridgeComposer, LZCurveAMO

669e9ce

feat: amos

a0d720d

refactor: rm frxEth

d530956

fix: variable usage, naming

846929b

feat: scripts

509fd3e

tom2o17 reviewed Nov 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

feedback

d3cedf2

pegahcarter merged commit bc36f7e into master Nov 13, 2024
1 check passed

pegahcarter deleted the v0.1.0 branch February 26, 2025 17:11

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

V0.1.0 #5

V0.1.0 #5

pegahcarter commented Oct 30, 2024

pegahcarter Oct 30, 2024

pegahcarter Oct 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pegahcarter Oct 30, 2024

pegahcarter Oct 30, 2024

tom2o17 left a comment •

edited

Loading

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

tom2o17 Nov 11, 2024

pegahcarter Nov 11, 2024

pegahcarter commented Nov 11, 2024


		import { FraxtalL2 } from "src/contracts/chain-constants/FraxtalL2.sol";

		contract FraxtalStorage {

		@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
		//SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
		pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

		@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
		// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
		pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

		@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
		// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
		pragma solidity ^0.8.0;


		import { FraxtalStorage, FraxtalL2 } from "src/contracts/FraxtalStorage.sol";

		interface ICurve {

V0.1.0 #5

V0.1.0 #5

Conversation

pegahcarter commented Oct 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pegahcarter Oct 30, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tom2o17 left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pegahcarter commented Nov 11, 2024

pegahcarter Oct 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tom2o17 left a comment •

edited

Loading