Issue: differing interface vs. implementation named arguments

[pegahcarter]

Description

Specifically within MessageLibManager, when calling named arguments of the contract one must use the interface over the implementation. For example, if I'm looking at the code and want to use:

LayerZero-v2/packages/layerzero-v2/evm/protocol/contracts/MessageLibManager.sol

Lines 83 to 89 in 7da7684

	function getSendLibrary(address _sender, uint32 _dstEid) public view returns (address lib) {
	lib = sendLibrary[_sender][_dstEid];
	if (lib == DEFAULT_LIB) {
	lib = defaultSendLibrary[_dstEid];
	if (lib == address(0x0)) revert Errors.LZ_DefaultSendLibUnavailable();
	}
	}

I would presume the contract I develop would look like this:

IMessageLibManager(endpoint).getSendLibrary({
    _sender: someAddress,
    _dstEid: someEid
})

However, this actually doesn't work in production. Why? Because the interface has a different declaration of the second argument:

LayerZero-v2/packages/layerzero-v2/evm/protocol/contracts/interfaces/IMessageLibManager.sol

Line 50 in 7da7684

function getSendLibrary(address _sender, uint32 _eid) external view returns (address lib);

Problem

Interfaces help with contract calls, while implementations help with understanding the interfaces. You can expect developers to refer to both implementation and interface when referencing contracts. However, if they use named variable calls, their contract won't compile if using the implementation named arguments.

Scope

There are several functions within MessageLibManager which break their interface conventions. I have not verified if the issue exists in other contracts.

Recommendation

I recommend maintaining the same variable name from interface to implementation so that named argument function calls can be consistently used.