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.

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

feature: targets and standardized proposal #99

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

novaknole
Copy link
Contributor

@novaknole novaknole commented Aug 14, 2024

Description

A couple of things remaining:

  1. Code of targets and execute functions are duplicated in abstract contracts. Either:
  • We leave it as it is
  • We use free function utils
  • We design another abstract contract and inherit from it in those - be careful with storage clashes in inheritance.
  1. Revert happens inside _execute functions but it might be desirable to leave this choice to consumer, but if we do so, consumer will have to do this decode stuff manually which is also not ideal. Considering how OZ does such stuff, the current way seems better than others.

Task ID: OS-1481

Checklist:

  • I have selected the correct base branch.
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code.
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
  • My changes generate no new warnings.
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules.
  • I created tasks to update dependent repositories (OSx, Plugins)
  • I ran all tests with success and extended them if necessary.
  • I have updated the CHANGELOG.md file in the root folder.

@novaknole novaknole changed the base branch from main to develop August 14, 2024 09:08
@clauBv23 clauBv23 mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2024
9 tasks
@clauBv23 clauBv23 changed the title Feature/targets and standardized proposal feature: targets and standardized proposal Aug 21, 2024
* feat: add test for checking the ExecuteFailed is properly emitted

* feat: add new case in mock executor to simulate the tests

* feat: refactor code to avoid duplications

* ci: fix solhint warnings

* ci: fix lint issues
function proposalCount() public view override returns (uint256) {
return proposalCounter.current();
function proposalCount() public pure override returns (uint256) {
return type(uint256).max;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We probably should add here a comment to explain why we are doing this now.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Description is added in IProposal which is clear as this function has inheritdoc above which dev should go and check in IProposal anyways.

/// @param _allowFailureMap Bitmap-encoded number. TODO:
/// @return execResults address of the implementation contract.
/// @return failureMap address of the implementation contract.
function _execute(
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We have quite some code duplication over all different Plugin* contracts.. probably worth refactoring it to have those methods only in one place..

clauBv23
clauBv23 previously approved these changes Sep 23, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@clauBv23 clauBv23 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

* add params byte approach

* add simple executor (#103)

* add simple executor

* action as free level export
/// Most useful use-case is to deploy as non-upgradeable and call from another contract via delegatecall.
/// If used with delegatecall, DO NOT add state variables in sequential slots, otherwise this will overwrite
/// the storage of the calling contract.
contract Executor is IExecutor {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't this contract be abstract?

error TooManyActions();

/// @notice Thrown if an action has insufficient gas left.
error InsufficientGas();
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
error InsufficientGas();
error InsufficientGasLeft();

Comment on lines +5 to +6
import {IDAO} from "../dao/IDAO.sol";

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
import {IDAO} from "../dao/IDAO.sol";

Comment on lines +17 to +18
/// @title IDAO
/// @author Aragon X - 2022-2023
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
/// @title IDAO
/// @author Aragon X - 2022-2023
/// @title IExecutor
/// @author Aragon X - 2022-2024

/// @notice Checks if this or the parent contract supports an interface by its ID.
/// @notice Returns the currently set target contract.
/// @return TargetConfig The currently set target.
function getCurrentTargetConfig() public view virtual returns (TargetConfig memory) {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
function getCurrentTargetConfig() public view virtual returns (TargetConfig memory) {
function getRawTargetConfig() public view virtual returns (TargetConfig memory) {

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
pragma solidity ^0.8.8;

import {IDAO} from "../../../dao/IDAO.sol";
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
import {IDAO} from "../../../dao/IDAO.sol";

Comment on lines +60 to +61
Action[] memory actions,
bytes memory metadata
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are these parameters needed here?

  • If it is to create an ID using them as entropy, why aren't we also receiving data?

/// @param _allowFailureMap A bitmap allowing the proposal to succeed, even if individual actions might revert. If the bit at index `i` is 1, the proposal succeeds even if the `i`th action reverts. A failure map value of 0 requires every action to not revert.
/// @return execResults The array with the results of the executed actions.
/// @return failureMap The failure map encoding which actions have failed.
function _executeProposal(
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Assuming that this is removed because plugins will be targeting an executor, rather than calling execute() locally

Comment on lines +28 to +32
type(IProposal).interfaceId ^
IProposal.createProposal.selector ^
IProposal.canExecute.selector ^
IProposal.createProposalId.selector ^
IProposal.createProposalParamsABI.selector ||
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't this be a versioned IProposalv1 and IProposalv2 interface?
It makes little sense that we are checking 2 different subsets of one interface

Comment on lines +33 to +39
_interfaceId ==
type(IProposal).interfaceId ^
IProposal.createProposal.selector ^
IProposal.canExecute.selector ^
IProposal.createProposalId.selector ^
IProposal.createProposalParamsABI.selector ||
_interfaceId == type(IProposal).interfaceId ||
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same (versioned)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants