Add ERC: Minimal Batch Executor Interface #726
Conversation
Vectorized
changed the title
ERCS/erc-9999.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| /// @dev Executes the `calls` and returns the results. | ||
| /// Reverts and bubbles up error if any call fails. | ||
| function execute(Call[] calldata calls, bytes calldata authData) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
consider using ERC7579 execute function here.
function execute(bytes32 mode, bytes calldata executionCalldata) external;
would be a shame if wallets need to integrate another pattern.
the authData could be just appended bytes in calldata to perform the signature check, and ERC-4337 based implementations of this ERC could utilize the same function signature with access control onlyEntryPoint while handling the signature validation in validateUserOp
this would also allow for implementations to utilize try-batched executions or delegatecalls as this is covered by the 7579 execution modes
I admit, appending the authData to the calldata is not the prettiest, but would yield great compatibility
minimalBatchExecutorVersion could also be ERC-7579's supportsExecutionMode
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This standard will only support regular calls, in an atomic fashion. Delegatecalls won't be supported.
If users want to make multiple try transactions, they can just sign multiple transactions with parallel nonces.
I think it will not be too hard for frontends that have already supported 7579 to support this ERC. They will still need to craft the array of executions.
Side question: Do we actually need ERC-165 for ERC-7579? I would strongly prefer to never use ERC-165.
|
Converted to use 7579 style. |
…rized/ERCs into minimal-batch-executor-erc
|
Lemme fix the 7579 issue first. If it is not feasible to be fixed, i'll go back to the original. |
…rized/ERCs into minimal-batch-executor-erc
|
Ok, let's merge. This should be good enough. |
ERCS/erc-7821.md
Outdated
| results = new bytes[](calls.length); | ||
| for (uint256 i; i < calls.length; ++i) { | ||
| Call calldata c = calls[i]; | ||
| results[i] = _execute(c.target, c.value, c.data); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: consider adding a special address (e.g., address(0)) where the contract would execute the transaction to self. This is a neat optimization when you must batch multiple calls on the account contract itself.
This is implemented in Safe's MultiSend contract: https://github.com/safe-global/safe-smart-account/blob/7f79aaf05c33df71d9cb687f0bc8a73fa39d25d5/contracts/libraries/MultiSend.sol#L50C17-L50C57
Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <[email protected]>
…rized/ERCs into minimal-batch-executor-erc
|
Ready to merge. |
| /// | ||
| /// `opData` may be used to store additional data for authentication, | ||
| /// paymaster data, gas limits, etc. | ||
| function execute(Call[] calldata calls, bytes calldata opData) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAIU, looks like this should be this right?
| function execute(Call[] calldata calls, bytes calldata opData) | |
| function execute(bytes32 mode, bytes calldata executionData) |
At least this is what the comment above, commit history (adopting 7579) and the reference implementation suggests.
No description provided.