Modify l2deposit using spender from user with permit

[108356037]

This PR modifies L2Deposit.sol & IL2Deposit.sol using spendFromUserToWithPermit.
Related test case files are also modified, run test case with the following command at project root:

export MAINNET_NODE_RPC_URL=xxxxxxxxx
DEPLOYED=false forge test -vvv --match-path "contracts/test/forkMainnet/L2Deposit/*.t.sol" --fork-url ${MAINNET_NODE_RPC_URL} --fork-block-number '15451000'

[NIC619]

This is the case where I think named parameter can help. What do you think? @pilagod @charlesjhongc

[NIC619]

I forgot this is a struct initialization. @108356037 Can you test if we could use named parameter to initialize a struct (e.g., the SpendWithPermit struct)?

SpenderLibEIP712.SpendWithPermit({
    tokenAddr: _deposit.l1TokenAddr,
    requester:  address(l2Deposit),
    ...
})

[108356037]

You mean like this ?:

function _createSpenderPermitFromL2Deposit(L2DepositLibEIP712.Deposit memory _deposit) internal view returns (SpenderLibEIP712.SpendWithPermit memory) {
        return
            SpenderLibEIP712.SpendWithPermit({
                tokenAddr: _deposit.l1TokenAddr,
                requester: address(l2Deposit),
                user: _deposit.sender,
                recipient: address(l2Deposit),
                amount: _deposit.amount,
                actionHash: getEIP712Hash(l2Deposit.EIP712_DOMAIN_SEPARATOR(), L2DepositLibEIP712._getDepositHash(DEFAULT_DEPOSIT)),
                expiry: uint64(_deposit.expiry)
            });
    }

[108356037]

Tested the code with _createSpenderPermitFromL2Deposit rewritten as above, all test case passed. 🫡

[NIC619]

Yap! This is awesome. I would like to proceed with named parameter. Let's wait for the comment from @pilagod and @charlesjhongc

[charlesjhongc]

Yeah I think named params should be better.

[pilagod]

LGTM

[108356037]

Modify to named parameters in several places:
7b4392e

[charlesjhongc]

I think this PR is mature enough and only some minors are left. But should be waiting for #114 get merged and rebase on it.

[charlesjhongc]

Yeah I think named params should be better.

[pilagod]

The #114 had been merged. We could start to do the sign permit refinement 💪

[108356037]

The #114 had been merged. We could start to do the sign permit refinement 💪

Modified the test cases using signSpendWithPermit() from contracts-test/utils/Permit.sol 🫡