Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[WIP] improve(utils): Avoid recomputing relayData hashes #657

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

[WIP] improve(utils): Avoid recomputing relayData hashes #657

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9ac70d0
improve(utils): Avoid recomputing relayData hashes
pxrl May 31, 2024
dfbd93e
lint
pxrl May 31, 2024
b29e208
Fix test
pxrl May 31, 2024
cea26c2
lint
pxrl May 31, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions src/interfaces/SpokePool.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ export interface RelayData {
fillDeadline: number;
exclusiveRelayer: string;
exclusivityDeadline: number;
_hash?: Record<number, string>;
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It'd be a fair bit more efficient for this to be a simple string, but the RelayData type doesn't include the destinationChainId, so the same RelayData object can map to multiple hashes depending on the value of destinationChainId. In the interests of safety it seems best to use a record, but I'd love to find a way to use a string instead.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does that mean the hash really should be one level higher where the destination chain is present (i.e. the hash should be in fill and deposit)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, that's a good option. It introduces a little bit of duplication but it's nothing major. I'll think about another way of passing in the hash if it's not defined in RelayData.

}

export interface Deposit extends RelayData {
Expand Down
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions src/utils/SpokeUtils.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -216,7 +216,9 @@ export async function getDepositIdAtBlock(contract: Contract, blockTag: number):
* @returns The corresponding RelayData hash.
*/
export function getRelayDataHash(relayData: RelayData, destinationChainId: number): string {
return ethersUtils.keccak256(
relayData._hash ??= {};

return (relayData._hash[destinationChainId] ??= ethersUtils.keccak256(
ethersUtils.defaultAbiCoder.encode(
[
"tuple(" +
Expand All @@ -237,7 +239,7 @@ export function getRelayDataHash(relayData: RelayData, destinationChainId: numbe
],
[relayData, destinationChainId]
)
);
));
}

export function getRelayHashFromEvent(e: Deposit | Fill | SlowFillRequest): string {
Expand Down
18 changes: 10 additions & 8 deletions test/SpokePoolClient.ValidateFill.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ describe("SpokePoolClient: Fill Validation", function () {
await spokePoolClient1.update();

expect(spokePoolClient1.getDepositForFill(fill))
.excludingEvery(["realizedLpFeePct", "quoteBlockNumber"])
.excludingEvery(["realizedLpFeePct", "quoteBlockNumber", "_hash"])
.to.deep.equal(deposit);
});

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -631,7 +631,7 @@ describe("SpokePoolClient: Fill Validation", function () {
expect(fill_2.relayExecutionInfo.fillType === FillType.FastFill).to.be.true;

expect(spokePoolClient1.getDepositForFill(fill_1))
.excludingEvery(["quoteBlockNumber", "realizedLpFeePct"])
.excludingEvery(["quoteBlockNumber", "realizedLpFeePct", "_hash"])
.to.deep.equal(deposit_1);
expect(spokePoolClient1.getDepositForFill(fill_2)).to.equal(undefined);

Expand All @@ -652,22 +652,24 @@ describe("SpokePoolClient: Fill Validation", function () {

expect(validateFillForDeposit(validFill, deposit_2)).to.be.true;

const _hash = undefined;

// Invalid input amount.
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, inputAmount: toBNWei(1337) }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, inputAmount: toBNWei(1337), _hash }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;

// Changed the output token.
expect(validateFillForDeposit(validFill, { ...deposit_2, outputToken: owner.address })).to.be.false;
expect(validateFillForDeposit(validFill, { ...deposit_2, outputToken: owner.address, _hash })).to.be.false;

// Changed the output amount.
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, outputAmount: toBNWei(1337) }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, outputAmount: toBNWei(1337), _hash }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;

// Invalid depositId.
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, depositId: 1337 }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, depositId: 1337, _hash }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;

// Changed the depositor.
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, depositor: relayer.address }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, depositor: relayer.address, _hash }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;

// Changed the recipient.
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, recipient: relayer.address }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;
expect(validateFillForDeposit({ ...validFill, recipient: relayer.address, _hash }, deposit_2)).to.be.false;
Comment on lines +655 to +673
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These tests exposed a sharp edge - producing a new relayData event based on an existing one, with some modified fields, risks inadvertently copying the old _hash. It needs to be manually unset. It's a pretty big foot gun...

});
});
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions test/SpokePoolClient.v3Events.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -209,9 +209,9 @@ describe("SpokePoolClient: Event Filtering", function () {
// The SpokePoolClient appends destinationChainId, so check for it specifically.
expect(slowFillRequest?.destinationChainId).to.not.be.undefined;
expect(slowFillRequest?.destinationChainId).to.equal(destinationChainId);
Object.entries(relayData).forEach(
([k, v]) => expect(isDefined(v)).to.equal(true) && expect(slowFillRequest?.[k]).to.equal(v)
);
Object.entries(relayData)
.filter(([k]) => k !== "_hash")
.forEach(([k, v]) => expect(isDefined(v)).to.equal(true) && expect(slowFillRequest?.[k]).to.equal(v));
});
});

Expand Down
Loading