feat: add rev share upgrader by 0xChin · Pull Request #53 · defi-wonderland/superchain-ops

0xChin · 2025-11-04T15:51:15Z

This PR contains the RevShareContractsUpgrader contract with the on-chain logic for the upgrade, which involves:

The (main) path were all FeeVaults are upgraded, FeeSplitter deployed and revenue sharing enabled
The path for only upgrade the FeeVaults and deploy FeeSplitter but without revenue sharing
The path to enable revenue sharing on a chain that once only upgraded the vaults but without enabling it

For the scope of this PR we'll also add a template that executes the main path looping through chains, with an example task of 2 chains config as input.

Finally, we'll adapt current integration tests to check the state on L2, and we'll add comprehensive unit tests coverage to the on-chain upgrader contract and to the template too.

0xDiscotech

Good job so far! Logic for upgrade seems solid

Co-authored-by: Disco <131301107+0xDiscotech@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Chiin <77933451+0xChin@users.noreply.github.com>

0xDiscotech · 2025-11-06T20:34:18Z

@0xChin don't forget to remove everything related to the outdated version we are descoping, e.g. the RevenueShareUpgradePath template.

Co-authored-by: Disco <131301107+0xDiscotech@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Chiin <77933451+0xChin@users.noreply.github.com>

0xDiscotech · 2025-11-11T19:27:22Z

+    function _upgradeVaultsWithRevShareConfig(address _portal) private {
+        address[4] memory vaultProxies = [
+            RevShareLibrary.OPERATOR_FEE_VAULT,
+            RevShareLibrary.SEQUENCER_FEE_WALLET,
+            RevShareLibrary.BASE_FEE_VAULT,
+            RevShareLibrary.L1_FEE_VAULT
+        ];
+        bytes[4] memory creationCodes = [
+            RevShareLibrary.operatorFeeVaultCreationCode,
+            RevShareLibrary.sequencerFeeVaultCreationCode,
+            RevShareLibrary.defaultFeeVaultCreationCode,
+            RevShareLibrary.defaultFeeVaultCreationCode
+        ];
+        string[4] memory vaultNames = ["OperatorFeeVault", "SequencerFeeVault", "BaseFeeVault", "L1FeeVault"];
+
+        address defaultImpl;
+        for (uint256 i; i < vaultProxies.length; i++) {
+            bytes32 salt = _getSalt(vaultNames[i]);
+            address impl;
+
+            // Check if this is the BaseFeeVault or L1FeeVault (both use default implementation)
+            bool isBaseFeeVault = keccak256(bytes(vaultNames[i])) == keccak256(bytes("BaseFeeVault"));
+            bool isL1FeeVault = keccak256(bytes(vaultNames[i])) == keccak256(bytes("L1FeeVault"));
+
+            if (isBaseFeeVault) {
+                // Deploy default implementation for BaseFeeVault
+                impl = Utils.getCreate2Address(salt, creationCodes[i], RevShareLibrary.CREATE2_DEPLOYER);
+                defaultImpl = impl;
+                _depositCreate2(_portal, RevShareLibrary.FEE_VAULTS_DEPLOYMENT_GAS_LIMIT, salt, creationCodes[i]);
+            } else if (isL1FeeVault) {
+                // Reuse the default implementation for L1FeeVault
+                impl = defaultImpl;
+            } else {
+                // Deploy specific implementations for OperatorFeeVault and SequencerFeeVault
+                impl = Utils.getCreate2Address(salt, creationCodes[i], RevShareLibrary.CREATE2_DEPLOYER);
+                _depositCreate2(_portal, RevShareLibrary.FEE_VAULTS_DEPLOYMENT_GAS_LIMIT, salt, creationCodes[i]);
+            }


The readibility here got a bit worse because we decided to only deploy one implementation FeeVault for both BaseFeeVault and L1FeeVault given they use the exact same bytecode.
On the previous way, the loop was way cleaner but it required an extra deployment, something that is not trivial given that the accumulation of deposits on the block are expensive in terms on gas, and we have a limit there (usually 20m gas).

Curious about wdyt about this @funkornaut001 @0xng

It makes sense to me as is. Previously, with the four deployments, were you approaching the block gas limit?

We were deploying four vaults, one per each, even though BaseFeeVault and L1FeeVault share the same one

It's ok, but it's incohesive. Not the code itself, but the practice. I find two things off about this approach:

The implementation is being deployed with the salt corresponding to the BaseFeeVault. This is awkward for the "L1FeeVault" in terms of following the practices. There's no real reason why it uses the salt of that vault over the other.

The only reason this works is because they share the same semver version constant. Otherwise, their bytecodes would differ.
Does any of these two points matter in practice? Not really. Point 2 could be an "issue" if this contract was meant to be reusable as the contracts evolved, because the bytecodes could technically differ at some point. But that's not the case, so fair game.

…ethereum-optimism#1257) * feat: add Revenue Share Upgrade Path (#8) * feat: Deploy FeesDepositor (#15) * feat: late opt-in template (#21) * refactor: contracts update creationcode (#23) * fix: sync (#24) * test: add require tests for fields on Revenue Sharing templates (#26) * fix: L2 target ProxyAdmin (#27) * chore: update cost of upgrades and deployments (#29) * test: revenue sharing upgrade unit tests (#22) * test: add basic validation for fees depositor template (#32) * chore: updates the bytecode for vaults, using initialize (#31) * test: integration supersim revshare (#30) * fix: broken simulations * fix: wrong location of synced regression tests * test: integration revshare late opt in (#33) * fix: ir fixes (#38) * chore: gas costs (#39) * fix: minors (#46) * fix: remove vm usage for getCreate2Address utils function (#48) * feat: descope late opt in (#51) * feat: add rev share upgrader (#53) * fix: bash on comment * fix: forge fmt * refactor: reduce code size by splitting logic between lib and contract (#59) * refactor: reduce code size by splitting logic between lib and contract * chore: remove comment * chore: remove prefix * refactor: split library (#60) * refactor: reduce code size by splitting logic between lib and contract * chore: remove comment * chore: remove prefix * refactor: split library in two to avoid code size error * feat: regression tests (#61) * fix: relay typo * fix: improve template validation checks (#62) * fix: wrong fee splitter bytecode (#63) * fix: skip comment * fix: rename test create two deployer * chore: add commit * feat: add upgrader deployment script (#64) * chore: update gas limits * refactor: use create two to get a deterministic deployment of the upgrader (#68) * chore: add todos (#66) * chore: remove tenderly simulations (#65) * chore: deploy and update new contract (#67) * fix: forge fmt (#69) * chore: fuzz init code on get create2 test (#70) * feat: deploy revshare mainnet (#71) * fix: forge fmt (#72) * chore: add todo comments (#73) * chore: reduce tenderly gas Co-authored-by: Maurelian <john@oplabs.co> * fix: reduce tenderly gas limit on sepolia (#77) --------- Co-authored-by: IamFlux <175354924+0xiamflux@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Chiin <77933451+0xChin@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: 0xchin <alanracciatti1220@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Maurelian <john@oplabs.co>

feat: add rev share upgrader

8957282

0xChin requested a review from 0xDiscotech November 4, 2025 15:51

0xChin self-assigned this Nov 4, 2025

0xChin added 7 commits November 4, 2025 15:11

feat: add upgrade function

f081a19

chore: remove wrong checks

d0f52d6

feat: add combined path

7910b0c

refactor: remove no sense struct

bb918b0

chore: fix comments

dcd596d

feat: add templates with example configs

6f11b32

chore: descope

1c7c070

0xDiscotech reviewed Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

0xChin and others added 8 commits November 6, 2025 15:19

refactor: move interfaces to single files

29b0cc7

docs: natspec

64a4838

refactor: use custom errors

f628e32

chore: improve comments

90ffdea

Co-authored-by: Disco <131301107+0xDiscotech@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Chiin <77933451+0xChin@users.noreply.github.com>

fix: reorder contracts deployment

495ecb1

chore: improve function naming

96acf0b

chore: improve function naming

4650303

chore: improve comments

80d93a1

Co-authored-by: Disco <131301107+0xDiscotech@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Chiin <77933451+0xChin@users.noreply.github.com>

0xDiscotech marked this pull request as draft November 6, 2025 19:17

maurelian reviewed Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/RevShareContractsUpgrader.sol Outdated

maurelian reviewed Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/RevShareContractsUpgrader.sol Outdated

maurelian reviewed Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/RevShareContractsUpgrader.sol Outdated

0xChin added 6 commits November 7, 2025 01:24

chore(descope): remove upgradeContracts function

4fb8591

chore(descope): hardcode saltSeed

8378bb9

chore(descope): hardcode same salt for all contracts

2750349

feat: allow multiple chain upgrades at once goooood

21e825a

test: add integration test

30d8d7d

fix: colission due to default salt

77965ec

0xiamflux reviewed Nov 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread test/integration/IntegrationBase.t.sol

Comment thread test/integration/IntegrationBase.t.sol

Comment thread test/integration/IntegrationBase.t.sol

Comment thread test/integration/IntegrationBase.t.sol

Comment thread test/integration/IntegrationBase.t.sol

0xChin added 4 commits November 11, 2025 12:52

refactor: rename RevShareManager -> RevShareUpgrader

bd5a0fb

refactor: single param for calling upgrader contract

585bee0

refactor: remove portals array from template config

d9a62b8

refactor: remove unnecessary encoding and decoding

c02d294

0xChin force-pushed the feat/revshare-refactor branch from c8793a5 to c02d294 Compare November 11, 2025 16:46

0xChin added 7 commits November 11, 2025 13:59

refactor: remove unnecessary for loop

2d7e5af

fix: broken validation

4baf448

refactor: improve var naming

ef6f900

refactor: improve var naming

7c143e0

feat: improve template validations

617a779

refactor: remove assembly usage

491dfc7

feat: use same impl for BaseFeeVault and L1FeeVault

6e57f0c

0xDiscotech reviewed Nov 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/RevShareContractsUpgrader.sol Outdated

chore: improve comments

a932638

Co-authored-by: Disco <131301107+0xDiscotech@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Chiin <77933451+0xChin@users.noreply.github.com>

0xDiscotech reviewed Nov 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libraries/RevShareLibrary.sol

0xChin and others added 2 commits November 11, 2025 15:48

refactor: use for loop for vaults deployment

ec1d538

feat: add upgrader unit tests (#55)

e83ae80

0xDiscotech marked this pull request as ready for review November 11, 2025 19:24

0xDiscotech reviewed Nov 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

0xDiscotech and others added 6 commits November 11, 2025 16:30

chore: add comment

99a3551

feat: add check and interface (#56)

b532af6

chore: fix gas costs

ad2dc9d

chore: undo wrong changes

f2d108b

chore: update gas limits (#57)

1bdc236

feat: add chain processed event (#58)

ce3936c

0xDiscotech merged commit 91a73ea into sc-feat/revshare-setup Nov 11, 2025
1 check passed

0xDiscotech deleted the feat/revshare-refactor branch November 11, 2025 22:34

Conversation

0xChin commented Nov 4, 2025 • edited by 0xDiscotech Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

0xDiscotech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

0xDiscotech commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

0xDiscotech Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

0xDiscotech Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

funkornaut001 Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

0xDiscotech Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

0xng Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

0xChin commented Nov 4, 2025 •

edited by 0xDiscotech

Loading