fix(sdk) depositETH gas estimation bug by tsite · Pull Request #9949 · ethereum-optimism/optimism

tsite · 2024-03-22T04:13:33Z

Description

Fix a bug in the sdk where gas estimation uses the zero address as the source instead of propagating the source address for the transaction.

Tests

Depositing eth via the CrossChainMessenger now works properly and estimateGas no longer reverts due to a lack of funds available at the zero address.

Metadata

Fixes Issue with depositETH #6723 deposit ETH cannot success #7896

propagate the deposit address instead of using the zero address as the source for eth_estimateGas

coderabbitai · 2024-03-22T04:13:38Z

Walkthrough

The recent changes involve enhancements to the CrossChainMessenger class and its test suite, focusing on improving gas estimation and simplifying the handling of overrides in token deposit methods. These adjustments aim to enhance reliability and efficiency in cross-chain transactions between Ethereum layers.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
`.../sdk/src/cross-chain-messenger.ts`	- Improved gas estimation in `depositETH` - Simplified `overrides` handling in `depositERC20`
`.../sdk/test/cross-chain-messenger.spec.ts`	- Updated gas estimation logic and balance checks - Modified sender addresses to account 13

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Include "from" address in `eth_estimateGas` for `depositETH` (#6723)	✅
Update transaction cost estimation process for accuracy and efficiency (github/ethereum-optimism/docs#595)	❓	The changes seem relevant to transaction cost estimation but without explicit mention, it's unclear if all aspects of the issue are addressed.
Ensure compatibility with the latest version of the SDK (github/ethereum-optimism/docs#595)	❓	The changes align with SDK updates, but without details on the SDK version, full compatibility cannot be confirmed.
Improve documentation related to transaction cost estimation (github/ethereum-optimism/docs#595)	❌	No changes to documentation are mentioned.

Possibly related issues

github/[TUTORIAL] update estimating transaction costs (with the sdk) to viem docs#595: The improvements in gas estimation and handling of overrides in the SDK could contribute to the objectives of updating the transaction cost estimation process for better accuracy and efficiency. This issue might benefit from linking to the PR for visibility on practical code adjustments that support its goals.

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
- Generate unit testing code for this file.
- Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
- @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
- @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

@coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
@coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
@coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
@coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

Documentation and Community

Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

codecov · 2024-03-22T04:29:20Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 18.18182% with 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 19.01%. Comparing base (b57a263) to head (289701d).
Report is 217 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #9949      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    28.34%   19.01%   -9.33%     
===========================================
  Files          165      155      -10     
  Lines         7271     6194    -1077     
  Branches      1330     1327       -3     
===========================================
- Hits          2061     1178     -883     
+ Misses        5104     4941     -163     
+ Partials       106       75      -31

Flag	Coverage Δ
cannon-go-tests	`?`
chain-mon-tests	`27.14% <ø> (ø)`
common-ts-tests	`26.72% <ø> (ø)`
contracts-bedrock-tests	`0.60% <ø> (ø)`
contracts-ts-tests	`12.25% <ø> (ø)`
core-utils-tests	`44.03% <ø> (ø)`
sdk-next-tests	`41.13% <18.18%> (+0.10%)`	⬆️
sdk-tests	`41.13% <18.18%> (+0.10%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
packages/sdk/src/cross-chain-messenger.ts	`48.05% <18.18%> (+0.32%)`	⬆️

... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

roninjin10

I believe this code has tests and I'm not 100% clear on why gasEstimation would fail here. Can you please write test that fails before your change demonstrating the issue?

roninjin10 · 2024-03-22T04:45:14Z

packages/sdk/src/cross-chain-messenger.ts

+        const from =
+          opts?.overrides?.from ??
+          (ethers.Signer.isSigner(this.l1SignerOrProvider)
+            ? (this.l1SignerOrProvider as Signer).getAddress()
+            : undefined)


Does ethers not already default to the signer address?

it was using the provider instead of signer for gas estimation - I updated the fix to use l1SignerOrProvider instead of l1Provider and cleaned up depositERC20 as well.

@roninjin10 if you could take another look at the pr, that would be awesome

See my comment here #9949 (review)

ok I updated the depositETH test to catch regressions @roninjin10 - the tests now fail without the changes made in this pr

we need to use the signer instead of provider to estimate the gas properly

use the signer instead of the provider

roninjin10

Thanks for adding the tests and apologies if getting this pr merged has been fustrating. My general inclination is to not accept this change but I'm borderline.

@smartcontracts any thoughts? I will defer to you if you think this change is worth merging. As far as I can tell it doesn't hurt anything

packages/sdk/test/cross-chain-messenger.spec.ts

roninjin10 · 2024-04-02T20:35:49Z

packages/sdk/test/cross-chain-messenger.spec.ts

+    // include a balance check as part of the estimateGas() call.
+    for (const signer of [l1Signer, l2Signer]) {
+      const estimateGas = signer.provider.estimateGas
+      signer.provider.estimateGas = async function (tx) {


So if I'm understanding this correctly, the issue here is geth reverts on balance checks. What I'm failing to understand though is we already have these tests running against geth via our devnet tests and against anvil via our anvil/vitest tests

I think new versions of geth do fail the gas estimate if the balance is lower than the call value. I'll update the test to check for strict inequality since a zero balance is permitted for non-payable functions.

for example, cast rpc eth_estimateGas '{"to":"0x00a149B262EA8ACA092Af1c43a899e7B18C5A4De", "from":"0x00a149B262EA8ACA092Af1c43a899e7B18C5A4De","value":"0x1"}' fails on most networks due to insufficient balance while cast rpc eth_estimateGas '{"to":"0x00a149B262EA8ACA092Af1c43a899e7B18C5A4De", "from":"0x00a149B262EA8ACA092Af1c43a899e7B18C5A4De","value":"0x0"}' succeeds.

hmmm definitely confusing to me because I'm pretty sure we are using a new version of geth for our devnet tests. I think you are right though and I just don't know enough to be able to approve this pr. @smartcontracts will check it out within a day or 2. Thank you for patience.

The sender is allowed to have no balance when calling estimateGas on nonpayable functions. Also revert some unnecessary test changes

tsite · 2024-04-02T21:46:38Z

I updated the test - would appreciate another review. We currently have patched code running in production to fix this bug and it would be nice to merge the fix upstream as well

github-actions · 2024-04-28T01:47:52Z

This PR is stale because it has been open 14 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days.

fix issues 6723, 7896

5d93693

propagate the deposit address instead of using the zero address as the source for eth_estimateGas

tsite requested a review from a team as a code owner March 22, 2024 04:13

roninjin10 suggested changes Mar 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

roninjin10 reviewed Mar 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

cleanup the fix

4358e1b

we need to use the signer instead of provider to estimate the gas properly

tsite force-pushed the develop branch from cfbcca0 to 4358e1b Compare March 22, 2024 09:05

tsite requested a review from roninjin10 March 22, 2024 09:06

tsite added 4 commits March 22, 2024 09:14

fix all estimateGas calls

14bf529

use the signer instead of the provider

pnpm lint:fix

5698ca0

update tests to catch regressions

7835302

rerun flakey tests (empty commit)

2675c85

roninjin10 reviewed Apr 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix balance check in tests

289701d

The sender is allowed to have no balance when calling estimateGas on nonpayable functions. Also revert some unnecessary test changes

tsite requested a review from roninjin10 April 12, 2024 19:01

github-actions bot added the Stale label Apr 28, 2024

github-actions bot closed this May 4, 2024

tsite mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2024

Inomurko/v1.7.7 ConstellationCrypto/celestia-bedrock#160

Merged

Comments

Conversation

tsite commented Mar 22, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Mar 22, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Assessment against linked issues

Possibly related issues

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

Documentation and Community

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 22, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

roninjin10 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

roninjin10 Mar 22, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tsite Mar 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tsite Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

roninjin10 Mar 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tsite Mar 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

roninjin10 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

roninjin10 Apr 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tsite Apr 2, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tsite Apr 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

roninjin10 Apr 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tsite commented Apr 2, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 28, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

tsite commented Mar 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Mar 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

CodeRabbit Configration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

codecov bot commented Mar 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

roninjin10 Mar 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tsite Apr 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading