-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 126
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.
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
test: add multi-owner modular account updateOwners test #1160
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
test: add multi-owner modular account updateOwners test #1160
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Your org has enabled the Graphite merge queue for merging into mainAdd the label “graphite-merge-queue” to the PR and Graphite will automatically add it to the merge queue when it’s ready to merge. You must have a Graphite account and log in to Graphite in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link. |
1983a71
to
908d16e
Compare
overrides: { | ||
maxFeePerGas: 1_851_972_078n * 2n, | ||
maxPriorityFeePerGas: 1_000_000_000n * 2n, | ||
callGasLimit: 43_960n * 2n, | ||
verificationGasLimit: 92_326n * 2n, | ||
preVerificationGas: 46_248n * 2n, | ||
}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Need to figure out why these values need to be increased. Doubling the derived values got the UO to succeed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
heads up: each of these fields supports a {multiplier: 2n}
instead of raw bigint
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmmm that's strange... we still need to merge in wevm/prool#26 because our tests use rundler 0.2.0
and we're on 0.4.0 already... I know there's been some changes to the pvg logic in later versions of rundler, so I wonder if that's related
maybe we should fork prool and use that instead
|
||
// Deploy account and update owners. Remove signer1 and add signer3. | ||
let result = await provider.updateOwners({ | ||
args: [[await signer3.getAddress()], [await signer1.getAddress()]], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is signer1 already on the account? or is this part of the test -- it should not revert if a signer is not on the account?
I ask because you attach signer2
above to this and wanted to make sure this was intentional
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
signer1
and signer2
are the initial owners. So here we deploy, set the initial owners, and update them at the same time. This one doesn't revert.
Debugging inaccurate gas/fee estimation for modular account's
updateOwners
. Bumped values withoverrides
to get test to pass. Putting this up for 👀 .Pull Request Checklist
yarn test
)site
folder, and guidelines for updating/adding docs can be found in the contribution guide)feat!: breaking change
)yarn lint:check
) and fix any issues? (yarn lint:write
)PR-Codex overview
This PR adds a test case to verify the functionality of updating ownership in a smart contract. It checks the successful removal and addition of owners using different signers.
Detailed summary
should update ownership successfully
.signer2
and set an initial balance.signer1
and addingsigner3
.signer1
was removed andsigner2
,signer3
were present.signer3
and addsigner1
.