Acrossv3 hotfix [AcrossFacetPackedV3 v1.2.0,ReceiverAcrossV3 v1.0.1] #897
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces multiple changes across various Solidity contracts and deployment configurations. Key modifications include enhancements to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
test/solidity/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.t.sol (1)
443-443: LGTM! Consider adding value-specific assertions.The new assertion for refundAddress is good. Consider adding specific value assertions to catch any unexpected address assignments.
-assertEq(original.refundAddress == decoded.refundAddress, true); +// Verify both equality and specific values +assertEq(original.refundAddress == decoded.refundAddress, true); +assertEq(original.refundAddress == USER_SENDER, true, "refundAddress should be USER_SENDER"); +assertEq(decoded.refundAddress == USER_SENDER, true, "decoded refundAddress should be USER_SENDER");
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol(7 hunks)src/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.sol(3 hunks)test/solidity/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.t.sol(3 hunks)test/solidity/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (9)
src/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.sol (2)
35-38: LGTM: Constructor signature simplified
The removal of the gas-related parameter simplifies the contract initialization while maintaining essential functionality.
111-116: Verify error handling in executor call
The error handling has been simplified, but we should ensure that the executor properly handles failed swaps.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that the error handling in the executor call is properly implemented across multiple receiver contracts. Let me analyze the specific case in ReceiverAcrossV3.sol:
- The code uses a try-catch block to handle failed swaps:
try
executor.swapAndCompleteBridgeTokens(
_transactionId,
_swapData,
assetId,
receiver
)
{} catch {
// send the bridged (and unswapped) funds to receiver address
assetId.safeTransfer(receiver, amount);
emit LiFiTransferRecovered(
_transactionId,
assetId,
receiver,
amount,
block.timestamp
);
}- If the swap fails:
- The original bridged tokens are safely transferred to the receiver using
safeTransfer - A
LiFiTransferRecoveredevent is emitted with transaction details - The failure is gracefully handled without reverting the entire transaction
This is a robust error handling implementation because:
- Users don't lose funds if swaps fail - they receive the original bridged tokens
- The failure is tracked via events for monitoring
- The implementation is consistent with other receiver contracts in the codebase
Error handling for executor call is properly implemented
The current implementation ensures users receive either their swapped tokens on success or their original bridged tokens on failure, with proper event emission for tracking.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how the executor handles failed swaps
ast-grep --pattern 'function swapAndCompleteBridgeTokens($$$) {
$$$
revert($$$);
$$$
}'
Length of output: 95
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the executor implementation
rg "swapAndCompleteBridgeTokens" -A 10
Length of output: 74379
src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol (3)
39-40: LGTM: Enhanced parameter tracking with depositor field
The addition of the depositor field improves transparency in token transfers.
269-295: Good refactoring to avoid stack-too-deep errors
The concatenation has been split into parts to prevent stack-too-deep errors, improving code reliability.
85-97: Verify calldata byte ranges in native token bridging
The calldata mapping has been updated to include the depositor. Ensure byte ranges are correctly aligned.
Also applies to: 101-112
test/solidity/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol (2)
36-38: LGTM: Test setup aligned with new constructor signature
The test setup has been properly updated to reflect the simplified constructor.
Line range hint 197-202: Verify test coverage for failed swaps
The test case properly verifies the recovery of funds in case of failed swaps.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the code further to verify the test coverage for failed swaps.
Let me try a different search pattern to find test cases for failed scenarios.
Let me search for the actual test implementation that verifies the recovery of funds.
Let me try one more search to find the test cases that verify the recovery functionality.
Test coverage for failed swaps is properly implemented
The test suite includes proper verification of the recovery mechanism when swaps fail:
- It verifies that the
LiFiTransferRecoveredevent is emitted with correct parameters - It checks that the original tokens are returned to the receiver when the swap fails
- The test mocks a failing swap and verifies the recovery flow with the original USDC amount
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for other test cases involving failed swaps
rg -A 5 "emit LiFiTransferRecovered"
Length of output: 73704
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test cases involving failed swaps in ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol
rg -A 10 "testHandle.*Failed" test/solidity/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol
Length of output: 78
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test cases involving failed scenarios in ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol
rg -A 10 "function test.*fail|function test.*revert" test/solidity/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol
Length of output: 752
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the test implementation in ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol
rg -B 5 -A 20 "handleV3AcrossMessage.*payload" test/solidity/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol
Length of output: 95
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test cases involving LiFiTransferRecovered event in ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol
rg -B 10 -A 10 "vm.expectEmit|LiFiTransferRecovered" test/solidity/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.t.sol
Length of output: 1363
test/solidity/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.t.sol (2)
150-151: LGTM! Well-documented addition of the depositor field.
The new depositor field is properly initialized and documented with a clear comment.
130-130: LGTM! Verify refundAddress alignment across the codebase.
The change to use USER_SENDER as refundAddress aligns with the depositor field, improving parameter consistency.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that:
-
The refundAddress field is used consistently across multiple contracts (StargateFacet, AcrossFacetV3, AcrossFacetPackedV3) and serves as both a refund address and depositor in the Across protocol.
-
In src/Facets/AcrossFacetV3.sol, there's a clear comment explaining that refundAddress is used as both:
_acrossData.refundAddress, // depositor (also acts as refund address in case release tx cannot be executed)- The change in test/solidity/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.t.sol to use USER_SENDER aligns with this dual purpose, as evidenced by the comment:
refundAddress: USER_SENDER, // Set to match the depositorLGTM! The refundAddress change is correct and consistent with protocol design.
The change to use USER_SENDER as refundAddress aligns with the protocol's design where refundAddress serves dual purpose as both depositor and refund address. This is properly documented in the codebase and consistently implemented.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify consistent usage of refundAddress/depositor alignment
rg -A 2 "refundAddress.*=.*USER_SENDER"
Length of output: 41
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for all occurrences of refundAddress and USER_SENDER to understand the pattern
rg "refundAddress" -B 2 -A 2
# Also search for USER_SENDER usage
rg "USER_SENDER" -B 2 -A 2
# Search for struct definitions containing refundAddress
ast-grep --pattern 'struct $_ {
$$$
refundAddress
$$$
}'
Length of output: 102400
Test Coverage ReportLine Coverage: 77.90% (2137 / 2743 lines) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (1)
Line range hint
24648-24935: Verify deployment timestamps are in chronological orderThe deployment timestamps are not in chronological order:
- 12:41:24
- 12:40:08
- 12:34:11
- 12:24:22
This could make it difficult to track the deployment history accurately. Consider sorting the deployments by timestamp.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(5 hunks)deployments/arbitrum.staging.json(1 hunks)deployments/polygon.staging.json(1 hunks)
🔥 Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- deployments/_deployments_log_file.json: Error: Server error: no LLM provider could handle the message
🔇 Additional comments (4)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (2)
24648-24653: Verify duplicate deployments to the same address
There are two deployments to address 0xe4F3DEF14D61e47c696374453CD64d438FD277F8 with different constructor arguments:
- At 12:41:24 with args ending in
...e8f7c5f2a...186a0 - At 12:40:08 with args ending in
...e7f096...186a0
Please verify:
- Which deployment is the correct one?
- Why are there multiple deployments?
- Are both deployments necessary?
Also applies to: 24714-24719
24891-24896: Verify duplicate deployments to the same address
There are two deployments to address 0x21767081Ff52CE5563A29f27149D01C7127775A2 with different constructor arguments:
- At 12:34:11 with args containing token address
0x7ceb23fd6bc0add59e62ac25578270cff1b9f619 - At 12:24:22 with args containing token address
0x82af49447d8a07e3bd95bd0d56f35241523fbab1
Please verify:
- Which deployment is the correct one?
- Are these different token addresses intended for different chains?
Also applies to: 24931-24935
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the deployment context by checking the full deployment entries and chain configurations.
Let me check the deployment files to understand which chains these deployments belong to.
Based on the results, I can now provide a clear response about the deployments:
Both deployments are correct but for different chains
The contract address 0x21767081Ff52CE5563A29f27149D01C7127775A2 is deployed as AcrossFacetPackedV3 on two different chains:
- Arbitrum chain deployment using WETH (
0x82af49447d8a07e3bd95bd0d56f35241523fbab1) - Polygon chain deployment using WMATIC (
0x7ceb23fd6bc0add59e62ac25578270cff1b9f619)
This is an expected configuration as:
- The token
0x82af49447d8a07e3bd95bd0d56f35241523fbab1is confirmed as Arbitrum's WETH in config/tokenwrapper.json - The token
0x7ceb23fd6bc0add59e62ac25578270cff1b9f619is configured in Polygon's multichain settings
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze constructor args and verify token addresses
# Search for token addresses in the codebase
echo "=== Token Address References ==="
echo "First token:"
rg "0x7ceb23fd6bc0add59e62ac25578270cff1b9f619"
echo -e "\nSecond token:"
rg "0x82af49447d8a07e3bd95bd0d56f35241523fbab1"
# Search for the contract address
echo -e "\n=== Contract Address References ==="
rg "0x21767081Ff52CE5563A29f27149D01C7127775A2"
Length of output: 1301
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get full context of both deployments and chain configurations
echo "=== Full Deployment Entries ==="
rg -A10 -B2 "0x21767081Ff52CE5563A29f27149D01C7127775A2" deployments/_deployments_log_file.json
echo -e "\n=== Chain Configurations ==="
echo "Polygon config:"
cat config/networks.json | grep -A5 "polygon"
echo -e "\nArbitrum config:"
cat config/networks.json | grep -A5 "arbitrum"
Length of output: 3792
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the chain context for each deployment
echo "=== Deployment Chain Context ==="
for file in deployments/*.json; do
echo "File: $file"
# Print 5 lines before the contract address to get the chain context
rg -B5 "0x21767081Ff52CE5563A29f27149D01C7127775A2" "$file"
done
# Check token configurations
echo -e "\n=== Token Configurations ==="
cat config/multichain.json | grep -A5 "0x7ceb23fd6bc0add59e62ac25578270cff1b9f619"
cat config/tokenwrapper.json | grep -A5 "0x82af49447d8a07e3bd95bd0d56f35241523fbab1"
Length of output: 30412
deployments/arbitrum.staging.json (1)
51-52: Verify contract deployment sequence and dependencies
The deployment introduces new contract addresses for ReceiverAcrossV3 and AcrossFacetPackedV3. Please ensure:
- The deployment order maintains protocol dependencies
- The old contracts are properly deprecated
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the results and generate additional verification scripts to check the deployment pattern and dependencies.
The first script will help us verify if old contract versions are properly maintained in deployment files. The second script will check deployment requirements to understand dependencies between contracts.
Let's examine these results before making a final determination about the deployment sequence and dependencies.
Based on the verification results, I can now provide a final response:
Contract deployment sequence and dependencies are properly maintained
The deployment follows the correct pattern with:
- Both contracts (ReceiverAcrossV3 and AcrossFacetPackedV3) are deployed consistently across networks
- Dependencies are properly configured in deployRequirements.json:
- ReceiverAcrossV3 requires Executor contract and spokepool address
- AcrossFacetPackedV3 requires spokepool and wrappedNative addresses
- Version consistency (1.0.0) is maintained across all deployments
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify contract deployment sequence and dependencies
# Check if these contracts are referenced by other contracts
rg -l "0xe4F3DEF14D61e47c696374453CD64d438FD277F8|0x21767081Ff52CE5563A29f27149D01C7127775A2"
# Check for any remaining references to old contract versions
rg "AcrossFacetPackedV3|ReceiverAcrossV3" --type json
Length of output: 73753
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any references to old contract versions in deployment files
rg -A 1 "AcrossFacetV3|AcrossFacetPackedV3" deployments/*.json
# Check deployment requirements and dependencies
cat script/deploy/resources/deployRequirements.json
Length of output: 28644
deployments/polygon.staging.json (1)
51-52:
Critical: Identical contract addresses across chains
The contract addresses for AcrossFacetPackedV3 and ReceiverAcrossV3 are identical in both Arbitrum and Polygon deployments. This is highly unusual and potentially problematic:
- Contract deployments typically result in different addresses across chains
- Using identical addresses could indicate a deployment configuration issue
- This pattern might expose the system to cross-chain replay attacks
Please verify:
- The deployment process for each chain
- Ensure these addresses are intentionally and securely configured
- Confirm that the contracts are properly initialized for each specific chain
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/types.yaml (1)
172-172: Improved version string handling, but consider additional validations.The change to use
jq --argis a good improvement as it properly escapes the version string and prevents potential issues with special characters.Consider adding these additional validations before updating package.json:
cd lifi-contract-types TMP=$(mktemp) +# Validate NEW_VERSION format +if [[ ! "$NEW_VERSION" =~ ^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+(-beta)?$ ]]; then + echo "ERROR: Invalid new version format: $NEW_VERSION" + exit 1 +fi +# Ensure version increment is valid +if [[ "$NEW_VERSION" == "$LATEST_TAG" ]]; then + echo "ERROR: New version ($NEW_VERSION) must be different from latest tag" + exit 1 +fi jq --arg new_ver "$NEW_VERSION" '.version=$new_ver' package.json > "$TMP" && mv "$TMP" package.json
lifi-action-bot
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.sol (1)
95-95: Fix comment formatting.The comment is missing a leading
*which breaks the consistency of the documentation format.-// @notice Since Across will always send wrappedNative to contract, we do not need a native handling here +/// @notice Since Across will always send wrappedNative to contract, we do not need a native handling heresrc/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol (1)
271-273: Fix indentation in concatenation.The selector indentation is inconsistent with the rest of the code.
- AcrossFacetPackedV3 - .startBridgeTokensViaAcrossV3ERC20Packed - .selector, + AcrossFacetPackedV3.startBridgeTokensViaAcrossV3ERC20Packed.selector,
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol(8 hunks)src/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.sol(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
src/Periphery/ReceiverAcrossV3.sol (3)
15-15: LGTM: Version bump is appropriate.
The version increment from 1.0.0 to 1.0.1 aligns with semantic versioning for a hotfix release.
35-40: LGTM: Constructor simplified.
The removal of the _recoverGas parameter simplifies the contract initialization while maintaining essential functionality.
111-116: LGTM: Simplified error handling.
The removal of gas recovery logic simplifies the error handling while maintaining the safety of user funds through direct token transfers.
src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol (5)
14-14: LGTM: Version update reflects new functionality.
The version bump to 1.2.0 appropriately indicates the addition of new functionality with the depositor field.
40-40: LGTM: Added depositor field improves clarity.
The addition of the depositor field to PackedParameters enhances transparency in tracking the source of funds.
85-112: LGTM: Native token bridging implementation is correct.
The implementation correctly handles the new depositor parameter and maintains clear documentation of the calldata structure.
269-295: LGTM: Good solution for stack-too-deep error.
Splitting the concatenation into parts effectively addresses the stack-too-deep limitation while maintaining readability.
311-312: LGTM: Decode functions properly handle new parameter structure.
The minimum length requirements and parameter extraction have been correctly updated to handle the new depositor field.
Also applies to: 346-347
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol (1)
273-299: LGTM: Good solution for stack-too-deepThe concatenation split into multiple parts is a clean solution to avoid stack-too-deep errors. The grouping is logical and well-organized.
Consider adding inline comments explaining the logical grouping of each part:
bytes memory part1 = bytes.concat( + // Function identification and core parameters AcrossFacetPackedV3 .startBridgeTokensViaAcrossV3ERC20Packed .selector, bytes8(_parameters.transactionId), bytes20(_parameters.receiver), bytes20(_parameters.depositor), bytes20(sendingAssetId) );
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol(8 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol (2)
14-14: LGTM: Version bump is appropriate
The version update to 1.2.0 appropriately reflects the addition of the depositor field and related changes.
315-316: LGTM: Verify decode function alignment
The decode functions are correctly updated with proper minimum length requirements and parameter extraction matching the calldata mapping.
Also applies to: 325-332, 350-351, 356-367
✅ Verification successful
LGTM: Encode and decode functions are properly aligned
The verification confirms that:
- The minimum length requirements (140 bytes for Native, 176 bytes for ERC20) match the encoded data structure
- Parameter extraction in decode functions correctly maps to the corresponding encode function's byte layout
- The refundAddress is properly set from the depositor field in both variants
- The byte ranges and data types are consistent between encode and decode functions
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify that encode and decode functions maintain symmetry
ast-grep --pattern 'function encode_$_Packed'
ast-grep --pattern 'function decode_$_Packed'
Length of output: 95
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for encode and decode functions in the AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol file
rg -A 5 "function (encode|decode).*Packed" src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol
# Search for calldata length checks in decode functions
rg "data\.length.*>=" src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol
# Search for parameter extraction in decode functions
rg -A 10 "function decode.*Packed.*{" src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol
Length of output: 1397
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the full content of decode functions to analyze parameter extraction
rg -A 60 "function decode_startBridgeTokensViaAcrossV3(Native|ERC20)Packed" src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol
# Get the full content of encode functions to verify symmetry
rg -A 60 "function encode_startBridgeTokensViaAcrossV3(Native|ERC20)Packed" src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol
Length of output: 7747
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (2)
24887-24898: Verify multiple deployments of contract 0x21767081Ff52CE5563A29f27149D01C7127775A2Similar to the previous case, this contract was deployed multiple times (12:24:22 and 12:34:11) with different constructor arguments.
Consider adding deployment comments or tags in the JSON to document the purpose of each deployment iteration. This would help track the deployment history and reasons for redeployment.
Example structure:
{ "ADDRESS": "0x21767081Ff52CE5563A29f27149D01C7127775A2", "TIMESTAMP": "2024-12-06 12:34:11", "DEPLOYMENT_TAG": "v1-hotfix", "DEPLOYMENT_NOTES": "Updated constructor args to fix XYZ issue", ... }Also applies to: 24931-24935
Line range hint
24430-24935: Document constructor argument mappingsThe constructor arguments are provided as concatenated hex strings, which makes it difficult to understand their purpose. Consider documenting the parameter mapping for each deployment.
Add a comment section in the JSON to map constructor arguments to their respective parameters:
{ "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS": "0x...", "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS_MAPPING": { "param1": "0x9295ee1d8c5b022be115a2ad3c30c72e34e7f096 (TokenAddress)", "param2": "0x7ceb23fd6bc0add59e62ac25578270cff1b9f619 (BridgeAddress)" } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
audit/reports/2024.12.06_AcrossFacetPackedV3(v1.2.0).pdfis excluded by!**/*.pdf
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
audit/auditLog.json(1 hunks)deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(6 hunks)deployments/polygon.staging.json(1 hunks)
🔥 Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- deployments/_deployments_log_file.json: Error: Server error: no LLM provider could handle the message
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- deployments/polygon.staging.json
🔇 Additional comments (4)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (1)
24430-24435: Verify multiple deployments of contract 0xe4F3DEF14D61e47c696374453CD64d438FD277F8
The same contract address appears in multiple deployment entries with different constructor arguments within a short time span (12:40:08 and 12:41:24). This could indicate deployment iterations or fixes, but should be verified.
Also applies to: 24648-24653, 24710-24721
✅ Verification successful
Multiple deployments of ReceiverAcrossV3 are valid across different staging networks
The contract address 0xe4F3DEF14D61e47c696374453CD64d438FD277F8 appears in both Arbitrum and Polygon staging deployments as ReceiverAcrossV3. This is expected behavior as the same contract is deployed across different networks. The multiple entries in the deployment log file represent these cross-chain deployments, not deployment errors.
- Found in
arbitrum.staging.jsonasReceiverAcrossV3 - Found in
polygon.staging.jsonasReceiverAcrossV3 - Referenced in demo scripts (
demoAcrossV3.ts) indicating intended cross-chain functionality
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify contract deployments and their constructor arguments
# Check if these addresses are mentioned in test files or deployment scripts
echo "Searching for contract address references..."
rg -i "0xe4F3DEF14D61e47c696374453CD64d438FD277F8"
# Check for any deployment scripts that might explain multiple deployments
fd -e js -e ts "deploy.*\.ts|deploy.*\.js" | xargs rg -l "staging"
Length of output: 634
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the contract deployments in staging environments and their deployment scripts
# First, let's see the full context of these staging deployments
echo "=== Arbitrum Staging Deployment ==="
cat deployments/arbitrum.staging.json
echo -e "\n=== Polygon Staging Deployment ==="
cat deployments/polygon.staging.json
# Let's also check for any deployment scripts related to ReceiverAcrossV3
echo -e "\n=== Searching for ReceiverAcrossV3 deployment scripts ==="
rg -A 5 "ReceiverAcrossV3" --type ts --type js
Length of output: 7735
audit/auditLog.json (3)
Line range hint 1-129: LGTM on JSON structure and formatting
The JSON structure is well-formatted and maintains consistency with existing entries. The indentation and nesting of objects follow the established pattern.
74-77: Validate audit coverage for modified contracts
The audit entries for both AcrossFacetPackedV3 and ReceiverAcrossV3 look properly structured. However, given this is a hotfix:
- Verify that the audit report specifically covers the hotfix changes (new depositor field and gas logic removal)
- Ensure the commit hash matches the version that was audited
Also applies to: 113-116
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the specific changes in the hotfix.
Let me check the previous commit to understand the full scope of changes.
Based on the comprehensive diff analysis, I can now provide the final response:
Hotfix changes have been properly audited
The changes between the initial audit (ef2d7bc) and hotfix audit (5f59b49) show:
- Addition of
depositorfield in thePackedParametersstruct - Removal of gas-related constants (ACROSS_REFERRER_DELIMITER, etc.)
- Version bump from 1.0.0 to 1.2.0
- Improved parameter packing and calldata handling
The audit report exists (audit20241206) and specifically covers these changes, with the exact commit hash (5f59b49) that contains these modifications.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the audited commit contents
git show 5f59b4957fe315ea2d7b5e9daa931785ccff488c | grep -A 10 "diff.*AcrossFacetPackedV3\|diff.*ReceiverAcrossV3"
# Check if the audit report exists
ls -l "./audit/reports/2024.12.06_AcrossFacetPackedV3(v1.2.0).pdf"
Length of output: 949
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the diff for AcrossFacetPackedV3 to see the hotfix changes
git show 5f59b4957fe315ea2d7b5e9daa931785ccff488c -- src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol
# Check the diff for ReceiverAcrossV3 to see the hotfix changes
git show 5f59b4957fe315ea2d7b5e9daa931785ccff488c -- src/Receivers/ReceiverAcrossV3.sol
# Let's also check the audit log content to see the full context
cat audit/auditLog.json
Length of output: 5704
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the changes between the initial audit and the hotfix audit
git diff ef2d7bc478ce1e7f5ad6f1060f657864124fa85e 5f59b4957fe315ea2d7b5e9daa931785ccff488c -- src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol src/Receivers/ReceiverAcrossV3.sol
# Also check the commit message for the initial audit commit
git show -s --format=%B ef2d7bc478ce1e7f5ad6f1060f657864124fa85e
Length of output: 22619
58-64:
Verify version consistency in audit report filename
The audit report filename mentions v1.2.0 but the contract version in the auditedContracts section is v1.0.0. This discrepancy needs clarification.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the contract versions and audit report.
Let me check the contract version and audit report path.
Version consistency verified between audit report and contract
The version in the audit report filename (v1.2.0) matches the version in the AcrossFacetPackedV3 contract (@custom:version 1.2.0). The audit report exists at the specified path and the version discrepancy concern is resolved.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check contract version in source files
rg -A 1 "contract AcrossFacetPackedV3" | grep -A 1 "contract"
Length of output: 50763
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for version information in contract comments and audit report
rg -g "!*.json" "version" --context 2
fd -e pdf . audit/reports/
Length of output: 82438
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check custom version in contract and audit report existence
rg -g "!*.json" "@custom:version" --context 1
ls -l audit/reports/2024.12.06_AcrossFacetPackedV3\(v1.2.0\).pdf
Length of output: 29530
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
deployments/mode.diamond.json (1)
Line range hint
4-7: Add missing version for DiamondCutFacetThe DiamondCutFacet has an empty version string, which could make version tracking difficult.
Apply this diff to add the version:
"0xf7993A8df974AD022647E63402d6315137c58ABf": { "Name": "DiamondCutFacet", - "Version": "" + "Version": "1.0.0" },🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
101-101: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (21)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(22 hunks)deployments/arbitrum.diamond.json(2 hunks)deployments/arbitrum.json(1 hunks)deployments/base.diamond.json(2 hunks)deployments/base.json(1 hunks)deployments/blast.diamond.json(2 hunks)deployments/blast.json(1 hunks)deployments/linea.diamond.json(2 hunks)deployments/linea.json(1 hunks)deployments/mainnet.diamond.json(3 hunks)deployments/mainnet.json(1 hunks)deployments/mode.diamond.json(1 hunks)deployments/mode.json(1 hunks)deployments/optimism.diamond.json(3 hunks)deployments/optimism.json(1 hunks)deployments/polygon.diamond.json(2 hunks)deployments/polygon.json(1 hunks)deployments/scroll.diamond.json(3 hunks)deployments/scroll.json(1 hunks)deployments/worldchain.diamond.json(1 hunks)deployments/worldchain.json(1 hunks)
🔥 Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- deployments/_deployments_log_file.json: Error: Server error: no LLM provider could handle the message
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (5)
- deployments/arbitrum.json
- deployments/mode.json
- deployments/blast.json
- deployments/scroll.json
- deployments/optimism.json
👮 Files not reviewed due to content moderation or server errors (3)
- deployments/linea.diamond.json
- deployments/base.diamond.json
- deployments/polygon.diamond.json
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
deployments/worldchain.diamond.json (2)
Learnt from: 0xDEnYO
PR: lifinance/contracts#782
File: deployments/worldchain.diamond.json:5-63
Timestamp: 2024-11-26T01:14:58.163Z
Learning: When facet versions are set to empty strings in `deployments/*.diamond.json` files, do not report this issue, as it is already known and will be addressed separately.
Learnt from: 0xDEnYO
PR: lifinance/contracts#782
File: deployments/worldchain.diamond.json:40-43
Timestamp: 2024-11-26T01:16:27.721Z
Learning: Version inconsistencies of 'GenericSwapFacetV3' across deployment configurations are acceptable if they are only due to differences in Solidity pragma directives.
deployments/scroll.diamond.json (1)
Learnt from: 0xDEnYO
PR: lifinance/contracts#819
File: deployments/scroll.diamond.json:82-82
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T09:43:10.543Z
Learning: In the `deployments/*.diamond.json` and `deployments/*.json` files, the `LiFiDEXAggregator` contract may intentionally have the same contract address across multiple networks. This is acceptable and should not be flagged as an issue in future code reviews.
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
deployments/linea.diamond.json
141-141: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/mode.diamond.json
101-101: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/blast.diamond.json
97-97: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/worldchain.json
23-23: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/optimism.diamond.json
169-169: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/mainnet.diamond.json
193-193: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/scroll.diamond.json
117-117: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (17)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (3)
24947-24953: Review the contract address reuse pattern.
The address 0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b is being reused across multiple networks for version 1.2.0 deployments. While this is possible with deterministic deployment, verify that:
- The constructor arguments are network-specific
- The deployment parameters are appropriate for each network
Consider documenting the deterministic deployment strategy and network-specific configurations.
Also applies to: 24971-24977, 24995-25001, 25019-25025, 25055-25061, 25079-25085, 25115-25121, 25139-25145, 25163-25169, 25201-25206
✅ Verification successful
Contract address reuse pattern is correct with network-specific parameters
The verification shows that while the contract address 0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b is reused across deployments, each deployment has unique constructor arguments that follow a consistent pattern:
- First parameter: Network-specific address (different for each deployment)
- Second parameter: Network-specific token/configuration address
- Third parameter: Common governance address (0x11f1022ca6adef6400e5677528a80d49a069c00c)
The deterministic deployment is correctly implemented with:
- Network-specific constructor arguments
- Consistent optimizer settings (1000000 runs)
- Empty salt value
- Version 1.2.0 across all deployments
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Extract and compare constructor arguments for the reused address
echo "Analyzing constructor arguments for 0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b:"
rg -A 1 "0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b" | rg "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS"
Length of output: 243
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find deployments with this address
echo "Searching for deployments with address 0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b:"
rg -B 5 -A 5 "0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b" deployments/_deployments_log_file.json
Length of output: 5047
24430-24444: Verify the rapid deployment sequence.
Multiple deployments of the same contract (0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23) occurred within a short timeframe on December 6th. This rapid deployment pattern might indicate:
- Emergency fixes
- Configuration adjustments
- Network-specific deployments
Also applies to: 24680-24684, 24788-24794, 24836-24842
24642-24650: Review the version upgrade strategy.
The deployment log shows direct jumps from version 1.0.0 to 1.0.1 and then to 1.2.0. This version jump pattern suggests significant changes between versions.
Consider:
- Documenting the rationale for version jumps
- Ensuring proper migration paths between versions
- Maintaining a changelog to track breaking changes
Also applies to: 24906-24914, 24945-24953
deployments/worldchain.diamond.json (1)
57-58: Verify intention to deprecate AcrossFacetV3
The Name and Version fields for AcrossFacetV3 have been set to empty strings, which typically indicates deprecation. Please confirm if this is intentional as part of the Across V3 hotfix.
deployments/linea.json (1)
40-41: Verify cross-chain deployment consistency
The updated addresses for ReceiverAcrossV3 and AcrossFacetPackedV3 should be consistently deployed across all supported chains.
deployments/base.json (1)
43-44: Verify contract address consistency across deployments
The new contract addresses need to be verified for consistency across all deployment environments.
✅ Verification successful
Contract addresses are consistently used across deployment files
The verification shows that both contract addresses are consistently used across all relevant deployment files:
ReceiverAcrossV3(0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23) is present in all deployment files including both standard and diamond variantsAcrossFacetPackedV3(0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b) is present in all standard deployment files (non-diamond variants)
This is the expected pattern as AcrossFacetPacked contracts are only used in standard deployments while Receiver contracts are used in both standard and diamond deployments.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if the new contract addresses are consistently used across deployment files
# Expected: The addresses should match in all deployment files where they are used
echo "Checking ReceiverAcrossV3 address consistency:"
rg -l "ReceiverAcrossV3.*0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23" deployments/
echo "Checking AcrossFacetPackedV3 address consistency:"
rg -l "AcrossFacetPackedV3.*0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b" deployments/
Length of output: 1020
deployments/blast.diamond.json (2)
77-78: Verify the implementation of GasZipFacet
Starting with version 2.0.0 suggests this might be imported from an existing implementation.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the implementation to verify its maturity and completeness.
GasZipFacet implementation is well-established and thoroughly tested
The implementation shows a mature and production-ready facet:
- Complete interface definition with proper documentation
- Comprehensive test coverage including fuzz testing and various edge cases
- Well-structured implementation with proper inheritance (ILiFi, ReentrancyGuard, SwapperV2, Validatable)
- Integration with production GasZip router (0x2a37D63EAdFe4b4682a3c28C1c2cD4F109Cc2762)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the implementation details of GasZipFacet
# Expected: Find the implementation file and verify its maturity
# Look for the implementation file
fd -t f "GasZipFacet.sol" src/
# Check for implementation details
rg -A 10 "contract GasZipFacet"
Length of output: 1619
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for interfaces and version history
rg -l "IGasZip" src/
rg "interface IGasZip" -A 10
# Check for main functionalities and entry points
ast-grep --pattern 'function $FNAME($$$) $$$' src/Facets/GasZipFacet.sol
# Look for tests coverage
fd -t f "GasZipFacet" test/
rg "function test" test/solidity/Facets/GasZipFacet.t.sol
Length of output: 2652
72-74: Verify the version bump justification
The version increase from 1.0.0 to 1.2.0 for AcrossFacetPackedV3 suggests significant changes.
deployments/mode.diamond.json (1)
85-86: Verify GasZipFacet version consistency
Ensure the GasZipFacet version 2.0.0 is consistent across all deployment configurations.
✅ Verification successful
GasZipFacet version is consistent across all deployments
The verification confirms that GasZipFacet version 2.0.0 is consistently used across all deployment configurations, including mainnet, testnet, and various L2 networks.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check version consistency for GasZipFacet across deployments
# Expected: Version 2.0.0 should be used consistently
rg -A 1 '"Name": "GasZipFacet",' deployments/
Length of output: 2193
deployments/scroll.diamond.json (2)
97-98: LGTM: GasZipFacet addition is consistent.
The addition of GasZipFacet with version 2.0.0 appears to be properly configured.
109-113: LGTM: Periphery contract updates are consistent.
The addition of GasZipPeriphery and update of ReceiverAcrossV3 addresses are consistent with other network configurations.
Let's verify the ReceiverAcrossV3 deployment:
✅ Verification successful
ReceiverAcrossV3 address is consistently deployed across networks
The verification confirms that the ReceiverAcrossV3 contract address 0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23 is consistently used across all network configurations in the deployments directory, including mainnet, scroll, polygon, optimism, base, arbitrum, blast, mode, and their diamond variants.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify ReceiverAcrossV3 address consistency across networks
# Expected: Same address across all networks
echo "Checking ReceiverAcrossV3 address consistency..."
rg -l "ReceiverAcrossV3.*0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23" deployments/
Length of output: 607
deployments/polygon.json (1)
55-57: LGTM: Contract address updates are consistent.
The updates to AcrossFacetV3, ReceiverAcrossV3, and AcrossFacetPackedV3 addresses match the pattern seen in other network configurations.
deployments/mainnet.json (1)
61-62: LGTM: Contract address updates are consistent.
The updates to ReceiverAcrossV3 and AcrossFacetPackedV3 addresses align with other network configurations.
Let's verify the contract dependencies:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the contract dependencies and configurations across different networks.
Let me verify the contract dependencies and references in test files.
Let me try searching without file type restriction.
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response since we have sufficient information about the contract dependencies and their usage in the codebase.
Contract address updates are verified and consistent
The updates to ReceiverAcrossV3 and AcrossFacetPackedV3 addresses are safe to proceed. The code analysis shows:
- Both contracts are properly defined and tested in the codebase
- ReceiverAcrossV3 is a standalone receiver contract for cross-chain operations
- AcrossFacetPackedV3 is a facet contract that integrates with the diamond proxy pattern
- No direct dependencies were found that would be impacted by these address updates
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any direct dependencies on the updated contracts
# Expected: Identify any contracts that might need updates due to address changes
echo "Checking for contract dependencies..."
# Search for imports or references to the updated contracts
rg -A 3 "AcrossFacetPackedV3|ReceiverAcrossV3" src/
Length of output: 1939
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check contract addresses across different network configurations
echo "Checking contract addresses across networks..."
fd -e json -x cat {} \; -p deployments/
# Check for any references to these contracts in test files
echo -e "\nChecking test references..."
rg "ReceiverAcrossV3|AcrossFacetPackedV3" -A 3 test/
Length of output: 66607
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for test files and references to these contracts
echo "Checking test references..."
rg -t sol "ReceiverAcrossV3|AcrossFacetPackedV3" test/
# Check for any imports or references in source files
echo -e "\nChecking source file references..."
rg -t sol "ReceiverAcrossV3|AcrossFacetPackedV3" src/
Length of output: 318
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for test files and references to these contracts
echo "Checking test references..."
rg "ReceiverAcrossV3|AcrossFacetPackedV3" test/
# Check for any imports or references in source files
echo -e "\nChecking source file references..."
rg "ReceiverAcrossV3|AcrossFacetPackedV3" src/
# Check for any interface definitions or dependencies
echo -e "\nChecking interface definitions..."
rg -l "interface.*Across" src/
Length of output: 3513
deployments/arbitrum.diamond.json (1)
136-138: Verify the deployment of AcrossFacetPackedV3.
The new facet has been added with version 1.2.0, which is a significant version bump from 1.0.0. Let's verify the contract deployment.
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the contract deployment by checking the contract's code and additional details.
Let me check the contract code and deployment scripts to understand the version upgrade better.
Based on the verification results, I can now provide a final response:
Contract deployment for AcrossFacetPackedV3 v1.2.0 is verified
The contract deployment at address 0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b is verified with the following confirmations:
- Contract is live on Arbitrum with valid bytecode
- Version 1.2.0 includes gas optimizations and packed calldata implementations for both native and ERC20 token bridging
- Contract has been thoroughly tested with comprehensive test coverage including:
- Native token bridging via packed and minimal functions
- ERC20 token bridging via packed and minimal functions
- Encoding/decoding of packed calldata
- Security checks for chain ID and amount limits
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify contract deployment and bytecode match
# Test: Check if the contract is deployed and verify its bytecode
# Check contract deployment
echo "Checking contract deployment on Arbitrum..."
curl -s -X POST https://arb1.arbitrum.io/rpc \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"jsonrpc":"2.0",
"method":"eth_getCode",
"params":["0x21a786957c69424A4353Afe743242Bd9Db3cC07b", "latest"],
"id":1
}'
Length of output: 25764
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the contract's code and additional details
# 1. Check if there are any previous versions of AcrossFacetPacked in the deployment files
echo "Checking for previous versions of AcrossFacetPacked..."
rg -l "AcrossFacetPacked" --type json
# 2. Check if there are any related test files or documentation
echo -e "\nChecking for related test files and documentation..."
fd -e sol -e md -e js "AcrossFacetPacked"
# 3. Check git history for version changes
echo -e "\nChecking recent changes to deployment files..."
git log -n 5 --oneline -- "deployments/arbitrum.diamond.json"
Length of output: 2668
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the contract implementation and deployment scripts
# 1. Check the contract implementation
echo "Checking AcrossFacetPackedV3 implementation..."
cat src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol
# 2. Check the deployment script
echo -e "\nChecking deployment script..."
cat script/deploy/facets/DeployAcrossFacetPackedV3.s.sol
# 3. Check test file for version changes
echo -e "\nChecking test file..."
cat test/solidity/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.t.sol
Length of output: 38538
deployments/optimism.diamond.json (2)
161-161: Verify GasZipPeriphery integration.
New GasZipPeriphery entry has been added. Let's verify its deployment and integration with GasZipFacet.
149-150: Verify GasZipFacet version upgrade.
The facet has been updated with name and version 2.0.0, indicating major changes. Let's verify the deployment.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the GasZipFacet to better understand the version upgrade.
Let me check the specific changes in the GasZipFacet implementation and the previous version information.
Let me check the documentation and contract changes to understand the version upgrade better.
Let me check one final thing to understand the previous version and changes.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
GasZipFacet version 2.0.0 upgrade appears to be a standard deployment
The version upgrade to 2.0.0 is consistent across all chains in the target state configuration. The facet maintains its core functionality for sending native gas tokens to other chains using the Gas.Zip protocol, as documented in GasZipFacet.md. The deployment requirements show standard configuration dependencies for the Gas.Zip router, and no breaking changes are evident in the implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify GasZipFacet deployment and version compatibility
# Test: Check contract deployment and search for version dependencies
# Check contract deployment
echo "Checking GasZipFacet deployment..."
curl -s -X POST https://mainnet.optimism.io/v1/rpc \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"jsonrpc":"2.0",
"method":"eth_getCode",
"params":["0xF5c923a087fb3c554579e2DD10AB6E37E0f6F849", "latest"],
"id":1
}'
# Search for version dependencies
echo "Checking for version dependencies..."
rg -l "GasZipFacet.*2\.0\.0"
Length of output: 464
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for GasZipFacet related files and changes
echo "Searching for GasZipFacet files..."
fd -t f "GasZipFacet"
echo -e "\nChecking previous version in git history..."
git grep -l "GasZipFacet" $(git rev-parse HEAD^)
echo -e "\nChecking contract interfaces and implementations..."
rg -A 5 "contract GasZipFacet"
echo -e "\nChecking version references..."
rg "GasZipFacet.*Version"
Length of output: 4637
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check previous version and changes
echo "Checking previous version in deployment files..."
git show HEAD^:deployments/optimism.diamond.json | grep -A 2 -B 2 "GasZipFacet"
echo -e "\nChecking implementation changes..."
git diff HEAD^ HEAD src/Facets/GasZipFacet.sol
echo -e "\nChecking deployment scripts for version info..."
cat script/deploy/facets/UpdateGasZipFacet.s.sol
Length of output: 811
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check documentation and contract changes
echo "Checking GasZipFacet documentation..."
cat docs/GasZipFacet.md
echo -e "\nChecking contract changes in recent commits..."
git log -p --no-merges -n 2 src/Facets/GasZipFacet.sol
echo -e "\nChecking target state configuration..."
cat script/deploy/_targetState.json | grep -A 5 -B 5 "GasZipFacet"
Length of output: 9323
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check previous version in deployment files
echo "Checking previous version in optimism.diamond.json..."
git show HEAD^:deployments/optimism.diamond.json | jq '.production.facets[] | select(.Name=="GasZipFacet")'
echo -e "\nChecking deployment requirements..."
cat script/deploy/resources/deployRequirements.json | jq '.GasZipFacet'
Length of output: 640
deployments/mainnet.diamond.json (1)
Line range hint 160-193: Changes consistent with other deployment files.
The modifications mirror those in arbitrum.diamond.json and optimism.diamond.json, maintaining consistency across deployments.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
193-193: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (1)
24955-24963: Review version upgrade strategy.The deployment log shows a version upgrade pattern from 1.0.0/1.0.1 to 1.2.0. Please ensure that:
- The version upgrade follows semantic versioning principles
- All necessary migration steps are documented
- The upgrade path is clearly defined for users
Also applies to: 24979-24987, 25003-25011, 25027-25035
script/helperFunctions.sh (1)
Line range hint
1450-1543: RefactorverifyContractfunction to eliminate code duplicationThe
verifyContractfunction contains duplicated code when callingforge verify-contractin both theifandelsebranches. Refactoring this function by consolidating the common logic will improve maintainability and reduce potential errors.Apply this diff to refactor the function:
function verifyContract() { # read function arguments into variables local NETWORK=$1 local CONTRACT=$2 local ADDRESS=$3 local ARGS=$4 # get API key for blockchain explorer if [[ "$NETWORK" == "bsc-testnet" ]]; then API_KEY="BSC_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY" else API_KEY="$(tr '[:lower:]' '[:upper:]' <<<$NETWORK)_ETHERSCAN_API_KEY" fi # logging for debug purposes echo "" echoDebug "in function verifyContract" echoDebug "NETWORK=$NETWORK" echoDebug "CONTRACT=$CONTRACT" echoDebug "ADDRESS=$ADDRESS" echoDebug "ARGS=$ARGS" echoDebug "blockexplorer API_KEY=${API_KEY}" echoDebug "blockexplorer API_KEY value=${!API_KEY}" if [[ -n "$DO_NOT_VERIFY_IN_THESE_NETWORKS" ]]; then case ",$DO_NOT_VERIFY_IN_THESE_NETWORKS," in *,"$NETWORK",*) echoDebug "network $NETWORK is excluded for contract verification, therefore verification of contract $CONTRACT will be skipped" return 1 ;; esac fi # verify contract using forge MAX_RETRIES=$MAX_ATTEMPTS_PER_CONTRACT_VERIFICATION RETRY_COUNT=0 COMMAND_STATUS=1 CONTRACT_FILE_PATH=$(getContractFilePath "$CONTRACT") FULL_PATH="$CONTRACT_FILE_PATH"":""$CONTRACT" CHAIN_ID=$(getChainId "$NETWORK") if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then warning "could not find chainId for network $NETWORK (was this network recently added? Then update helper function 'getChainId'" fi while [ $COMMAND_STATUS -ne 0 -a $RETRY_COUNT -lt $MAX_RETRIES ]; do # Common part of the command CMD_ARGS=(verify-contract --watch --chain "$CHAIN_ID" "$ADDRESS" "$FULL_PATH" --skip-is-verified-check -e "${!API_KEY}") if [ "$ARGS" != "0x" ]; then CMD_ARGS+=(--constructor-args "$ARGS") fi # only show output if DEBUG flag is activated if [[ "$DEBUG" == *"true"* ]]; then if [[ $NETWORK == "zksync" ]]; then # Verify using foundry-zksync from docker image docker run --rm -it -v .:/foundry -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -e FOUNDRY_PROFILE=zksync foundry-zksync forge "${CMD_ARGS[@]}" else forge "${CMD_ARGS[@]}" fi else if [[ $NETWORK == "zksync" ]]; then # Verify using foundry-zksync from docker image docker run --rm -it -v .:/foundry -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -e FOUNDRY_PROFILE=zksync foundry-zksync forge "${CMD_ARGS[@]}" >/dev/null 2>&1 else forge "${CMD_ARGS[@]}" >/dev/null 2>&1 fi fi COMMAND_STATUS=$? RETRY_COUNT=$((RETRY_COUNT + 1)) done # Remaining code... }🧰 Tools
🪛 Shellcheck (0.10.0)
[warning] 1457-1457: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
(SC2046)
[warning] 1457-1457: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
(SC2046)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(25 hunks)deployments/zksync.json(1 hunks)script/deploy/deploySingleContract.sh(1 hunks)script/helperFunctions.sh(1 hunks)
🔥 Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- deployments/_deployments_log_file.json: Error: Server error: no LLM provider could handle the message
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Shellcheck (0.10.0)
script/deploy/deploySingleContract.sh
[warning] 228-228: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
(SC2046)
[warning] 228-228: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
(SC2046)
[warning] 228-228: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
(SC2046)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (2)
24611-24611: Critical: Unverified contract deployment detected.
The contract deployment at address 0xAd99305a4277B417d1711CB358Dcf124181Ec3C3 is marked as unverified. This poses a security risk as the deployed bytecode cannot be verified against the source code.
24644-24649: Verify the consistency of contract deployments.
The contract at address 0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23 is being deployed multiple times across different environments with different constructor arguments. While this might be intentional, it's important to verify that:
- Each deployment is serving a different purpose
- The different constructor arguments are intentional and correct
- There's no risk of contract address collision
Also applies to: 24788-24793, 24836-24841, 24860-24865
✅ Verification successful
The analysis shows multiple deployments of the same contract within a short timeframe (all on Dec 6, 2024) with different constructor arguments. Before making a final determination, I'd like to:
- Identify what contract this is
- Find any documentation about the deployment strategy
- Understand if this is part of a normal deployment pattern
This will help us verify if these deployments are intentional and serving different purposes.
The previous search was too restrictive. Let's try a broader search to:
- Find any references to this contract address in any file type
- Look at the surrounding context of deployments to identify the contract type
- Analyze the pattern in constructor arguments, noting that they all start with the same address
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response:
Multiple deployments of ReceiverAcrossV3 are intentional and expected
The contract at 0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23 is the ReceiverAcrossV3 contract that is deployed across multiple chains (Scroll, Worldchain, Optimism, Base, Arbitrum, Polygon, etc.) as part of a cross-chain infrastructure. The different constructor arguments represent:
- A consistent first parameter (
0x156cebba59deb2cb23742f70dcb0a11cc775591f) across all deployments - Different chain-specific parameters for each deployment
- A consistent last parameter (
0x000186a0) across all deployments
This is a standard pattern for cross-chain bridges where the same contract needs to be deployed on multiple chains with chain-specific configurations. The address collision risk is non-existent as these are deployments on different chains.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze the deployment pattern of contract 0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23
# Check for all occurrences of this address in the deployment log
echo "Analyzing deployments of 0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23:"
rg -A 4 "0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23" | grep -E "ADDRESS|CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS|TIMESTAMP"
Length of output: 4998
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's find out what contract this is and its purpose
echo "Looking for contract definition or deployment script:"
rg -B 2 -A 2 "0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23" --type ts --type js --type sol
# Let's also check if there's any documentation about this deployment pattern
echo -e "\nChecking for deployment documentation:"
fd -e md | xargs rg -l "0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23"
Length of output: 394
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to find the contract and deployment context
echo "Looking for deployment scripts and contract definitions:"
rg -B 5 -A 5 "0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23"
# Let's also analyze the constructor args pattern
echo -e "\nAnalyzing the contract name or type:"
rg -B 2 "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS.*0x000000000000000000000000156cebba59deb2cb23742f70dcb0a11cc775591f" deployments/_deployments_log_file.json
Length of output: 83551
deployments/zksync.json (1)
24-25:
Verify contract addresses and deployment status
The updated contract addresses for zkSync network need verification to ensure security and correctness:
- ReceiverAcrossV3:
0x68cb042aD93608e819b699427726e5c5E1A5F2dC - AcrossFacetPackedV3:
0x45C83B209878601d21604301dfE25bD6D0BBC218
Please ensure:
- These are the correct and intended contract addresses for zkSync
- The deployed contracts have been verified on the zkSync block explorer
- The contracts have undergone preliminary audit as per PR requirements
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
deployments/mode.diamond.json (1)
Line range hint
1-102: Architecture Recommendation: Consider Version Control StrategyThe deployment configuration file contains multiple facet versions and addresses. Consider:
- Implementing a version control strategy for coordinated updates across networks
- Adding comments or documentation for version bump rationale
- Including checksums for contract bytecode verification
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
101-101: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
deployments/blast.diamond.json(2 hunks)deployments/mode.diamond.json(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
deployments/blast.diamond.json
97-97: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/mode.diamond.json
101-101: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
deployments/blast.diamond.json (1)
76-78: Review version numbering for new GasZipFacet.
Starting with version 2.0.0 for a newly introduced facet is unusual. Please confirm if this is intentional or if it should start with 1.0.0 following semantic versioning practices.
✅ Verification successful
Version 2.0.0 is consistently used across networks for GasZipFacet
The version 2.0.0 for GasZipFacet is consistently used across all networks where it's deployed (arbitrum, avalanche, base, blast, gravity, linea, mainnet, mantle, metis, mode, optimism, polygon, scroll, worldchain, xlayer, zksync). This consistent versioning across multiple networks suggests it's an intentional choice rather than an oversight.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check GasZipFacet version across networks
echo "Checking GasZipFacet version across networks..."
for file in deployments/*.diamond.json; do
if [ -f "$file" ]; then
echo "Network: $(basename "$file")"
jq -r '.LiFiDiamond.Facets[] | select(.Name == "GasZipFacet") | .Version' "$file"
fi
done
Length of output: 13901
deployments/mode.diamond.json (3)
85-86: Verify GasZipFacet integration
The addition of GasZipFacet with version 2.0.0 suggests this is a major update with potential breaking changes. As this is part of a hotfix PR, we should ensure this addition is necessary and well-tested.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now provide a definitive response about the GasZipFacet integration:
GasZipFacet 2.0.0 is a well-tested and established component
The version 2.0.0 of GasZipFacet is already deployed across multiple networks and has comprehensive test coverage:
- The facet has extensive unit tests in
test/solidity/Facets/GasZipFacet.t.sol - The implementation is audited as shown in
audit/auditLog.json - The facet is consistently deployed with version 2.0.0 across multiple networks including mainnet, polygon, arbitrum, optimism etc.
- The facet has proper integration tests with its periphery contract (GasZipPeriphery)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the integration points of GasZipFacet
# Check for interface implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'contract GasZipFacet'
# Look for related test files
fd -t f -e sol "GasZipFacet.*test"
Length of output: 80
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to understand the GasZipFacet integration
# Search for any mentions of GasZipFacet in the codebase
rg -i "GasZipFacet" -A 3
# Look for any diamond facet related patterns
rg -i "facet" -g "*.sol" -A 3
# Check deployment configurations for facet versions
fd -t f -e json . | xargs grep -l "GasZipFacet" | xargs cat
# Check git history for recent changes related to GasZipFacet
git log --oneline -n 5 -- "*GasZipFacet*"
Length of output: 85379
72-74: Verify the version bump justification
The version update from 1.0.0 to 1.2.0 for AcrossFacetPackedV3 indicates a minor feature addition with backward compatibility. This aligns with the PR's changes to enhance parameter handling and add the depositor field.
✅ Verification successful
Version update from 1.0.0 to 1.2.0 is properly documented in the contract
The version bump from 1.0.0 to 1.2.0 in the deployment configuration matches the @custom:version annotation in the contract implementation (src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol). This indicates proper version synchronization between the contract and its deployment configuration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if version bump follows semantic versioning guidelines
# and aligns with changes in implementation
# Look for breaking changes in the implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'contract AcrossFacetPackedV3'
# Check version history in git
git log -n 5 --oneline deployments/mode.diamond.json | grep -i "acrossfacetpackedv3"
Length of output: 51
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to verify the version changes
# Search for AcrossFacetPackedV3 contract implementation
fd -e sol -e js -e ts . | xargs rg "AcrossFacetPackedV3" -B 2 -A 2
# Look for version related changes in recent commits
git log -n 1 deployments/mode.diamond.json
# Check if there are any related test files
fd -e test.sol -e test.js -e spec.ts . | xargs rg "AcrossFacetPackedV3"
Length of output: 72232
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the contract implementation and version history
# Look for version annotations in the contract
rg -B 2 -A 2 "@custom:version" src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol
# Check audit logs for version info
rg "AcrossFacetPackedV3.*version" audit/auditLog.json
# Check recent commits mentioning version changes
git log -n 3 --oneline --grep="version" -- src/Facets/AcrossFacetPackedV3.sol deployments/mode.diamond.json
Length of output: 368
93-101: Validate peripheral contract addresses
The new GasZipPeriphery address and updated ReceiverAcrossV3 address need verification:
- Ensure these are valid contract addresses
- Confirm they are deployed with verified source code
- Check they match the intended implementation
Note: The static analysis warning about an API key in TokenWrapper address is a false positive - this is a valid Ethereum address.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about these contracts by searching for their references in the codebase.
Let me search for the contract source code and audit information to complete the verification.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final verification response:
✓ Contract addresses verified
The GasZipPeriphery (0x9a21E33F1a78b17DAd32010CeDB9Fd2F071C17d3) and ReceiverAcrossV3 (0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23) addresses are valid and have been:
- Properly formatted as Ethereum addresses
- Consistently deployed across multiple networks
- Audited in their current versions:
- GasZipPeriphery v1.0.0 - Audit completed on 07.11.2024 (audit20241107)
- ReceiverAcrossV3 v1.0.0 - Audit completed on 07.10.2024 (audit20241007)
- Deployed with required configuration as per deployRequirements.json
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify contract addresses format and deployment
# Check address format
echo "0x9a21E33F1a78b17DAd32010CeDB9Fd2F071C17d3" | grep -E '^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$'
echo "0xca6e6B692F568055adA0bF72A06D1EBbC938Fb23" | grep -E '^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$'
# Look for related deployment scripts
fd -t f "deploy.*GasZipPeriphery"
fd -t f "deploy.*ReceiverAcrossV3"
Length of output: 322
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for contract references and configurations
rg -A 5 "GasZipPeriphery" --type json
rg -A 5 "ReceiverAcrossV3" --type json
# Search for any test files or documentation mentioning these contracts
rg "GasZipPeriphery" --type md --type ts --type js
rg "ReceiverAcrossV3" --type md --type ts --type js
# Look for any deployment artifacts or ABIs
fd -t f "GasZipPeriphery.*json"
fd -t f "ReceiverAcrossV3.*json"
Length of output: 83284
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for contract source code and audit information
rg -A 5 "GasZipPeriphery" --type sol
rg -A 5 "ReceiverAcrossV3" --type sol
# Check audit logs
cat audit/auditLog.json
# Look for deployment requirements
cat script/deploy/resources/deployRequirements.json
Length of output: 19213
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
101-101: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(24 hunks)
🔥 Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- deployments/_deployments_log_file.json: Error: Server error: no LLM provider could handle the message
🔇 Additional comments (4)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (4)
24963-24972: Version upgrade pattern observed.
A new version 1.0.1 has been introduced alongside the existing 1.0.0 version. The deployment timestamps show a logical progression, and all contracts are properly verified.
Also applies to: 24980-24985
25290-25299: New major version deployment verified.
Version 1.2.0 deployments show consistent patterns:
- All contracts are verified
- Constructor arguments follow a consistent pattern
- Deployment timestamps are logically sequenced
Also applies to: 25314-25323, 25338-25347, 25362-25383
25530-25539: Contract verification confirmed after deployment.
The contract at address 0x45C83B209878601d21604301dfE25bD6D0BBC218 is properly verified, maintaining transparency and security standards.
24914-24919:
Critical: Unverified contract deployment detected.
The contract deployment at address 0xAd99305a4277B417d1711CB358Dcf124181Ec3C3 is marked as unverified. This poses a security risk as the deployed bytecode cannot be verified against the source code.
Which Jira task belongs to this PR?
Why did I implement it this way?
Checklist before requesting a review
Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)