improve: Handle deposits referencing input/output/repayment tokens that do not map to PoolRebalanceRoutes #970
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ap to PoolRebalanceRoutes Prerequisite changes needed to prepare for SpokePool that do not enforce deposit route whitelist checking The changes include: - changing the bundle data client's choice of repayment chain for a deposit where the inputToken and originChain do not map to a PoolRebalanceRoute - building running balances based on refunds for a token that isn't mapped to a pool rebalance route
nicholaspai
changed the title
nicholaspai
changed the title
…ation chain only if changing refund address to msg.sender and there are valid pool rebalance routes
pxrl
reviewed
Apr 15, 2025
src/utils/DepositUtils.ts
Outdated
| @@ -208,6 +208,11 @@ export function isZeroValueDeposit(deposit: Pick<Deposit, "inputAmount" | "messa | |||
| return deposit.inputAmount.eq(0) && isMessageEmpty(deposit.message); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| export function invalidOutputToken(deposit: Pick<DepositWithBlock, "outputToken">): boolean { | |||
| // If the output token is zero address, then it is invalid. | |||
| return deposit.outputToken === ZERO_ADDRESS; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be ZERO_BYTES ? I think fwiw we already have a similar function (isZeroAddress()) used by the SpokePoolClient to determine whether it needs to sub in a valid address.
bmzig
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good to me. I couldn't see anything wrong. A minor note: it seems like getL1TokenForDeposit and getL2TokenForDeposit will break with the contract upgrade, but the only time we use it is when calculating lp fees, which is addressed by the changes here.
|
Yeah I think this PR catches all instances where we use getL1TokenForDeposit and getL2TokenForDeposit but that's definitely a worry of mine. Thanks for reviewing |
bmzig
reviewed
Apr 21, 2025
bmzig
approved these changes
Apr 21, 2025
md0x
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 2, 2025
…at do not map to PoolRebalanceRoutes (#970)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Prerequisite changes needed to prepare for SpokePool that do not enforce deposit route whitelist checking. In this upcoming paradigm, deposits can be sent where the
inputTokendoes not correspond to aPoolRebalanceRoutemapping. Implements this UMIP changeThis change should be backwards compatible as all tokens that can be deposited are mapped to PoolRebalanceRoutes
The changes include:
outputToken = 0x0but there are not sufficient PoolRebalanceRoutes to resolve the outputToken