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

[Multichain] fix: Check all fallbackHandler deployments [SW-236] #4281

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 1, 2024

Conversation

usame-algan
Copy link
Member

What it solves

Resolves SW-236

How this PR fixes it

Uses getCompatibilityFallbackHandlerDeployments to get all deployment addresses in case there is a canonical and eip155 deployment and checks those addresses to decide whether its an official deployment or not

How to test it

  1. Open a Safe on a network with multiple deployments e.g. oeth:0xa4Fea8eF4a5dc35C5627Da7784b065934a5693a7
  2. Go to the settings page and observe no unofficial fallback handler warning

Screenshots

Screenshot 2024-09-30 at 11 32 13

Checklist

  • I've tested the branch on mobile 📱
  • I've documented how it affects the analytics (if at all) 📊
  • I've written a unit/e2e test for it (if applicable) 🧑‍💻

@usame-algan usame-algan requested a review from schmanu September 30, 2024 09:32
Copy link

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 30, 2024

@usame-algan usame-algan force-pushed the official-fallback-handler branch from eadaab2 to e98677a Compare September 30, 2024 09:32
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 30, 2024

📦 Next.js Bundle Analysis for safe-wallet-web

This analysis was generated by the Next.js Bundle Analysis action. 🤖

⚠️ Global Bundle Size Increased

Page Size (compressed)
global 1004.22 KB (🟡 +49.42 KB)
Details

The global bundle is the javascript bundle that loads alongside every page. It is in its own category because its impact is much higher - an increase to its size means that every page on your website loads slower, and a decrease means every page loads faster.

Any third party scripts you have added directly to your app using the <script> tag are not accounted for in this analysis

If you want further insight into what is behind the changes, give @next/bundle-analyzer a try!

Fifteen Pages Changed Size

The following pages changed size from the code in this PR compared to its base branch:

Page Size (compressed) First Load
/ 511 B (🟢 -24.37 KB) 1004.72 KB
/address-book 26.09 KB (🟡 +5 B) 1.01 MB
/apps/open 54.7 KB (-1 B) 1.03 MB
/balances 30.95 KB (🟡 +14 B) 1.01 MB
/balances/nfts 19.18 KB (-1 B) 1023.4 KB
/home 60.54 KB (🟡 +839 B) 1.04 MB
/new-safe/advanced-create 36.49 KB (🟡 +1.36 KB) 1.02 MB
/new-safe/create 35.75 KB (🟡 +1.36 KB) 1.02 MB
/new-safe/load 16.41 KB (🟡 +10 B) 1020.63 KB
/settings/modules 9.82 KB (🟡 +38 B) 1014.04 KB
/settings/notifications 27.03 KB (-1 B) 1.01 MB
/settings/setup 35.98 KB (🟡 +5 B) 1.02 MB
/transactions/tx 21.07 KB (-2 B) 1 MB
/welcome 6.8 KB (🟢 -1 B) 1011.02 KB
/welcome/accounts 379 B (🟢 -1 B) 1004.59 KB
Details

Only the gzipped size is provided here based on an expert tip.

First Load is the size of the global bundle plus the bundle for the individual page. If a user were to show up to your website and land on a given page, the first load size represents the amount of javascript that user would need to download. If next/link is used, subsequent page loads would only need to download that page's bundle (the number in the "Size" column), since the global bundle has already been downloaded.

Any third party scripts you have added directly to your app using the <script> tag are not accounted for in this analysis

Next to the size is how much the size has increased or decreased compared with the base branch of this PR. If this percentage has increased by 20% or more, there will be a red status indicator applied, indicating that special attention should be given to this.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 30, 2024

Coverage report

St.
Category Percentage Covered / Total
🟡 Statements
78.07% (-0% 🔻)
12416/15904
🔴 Branches
58.18% (+0.03% 🔼)
3231/5553
🟡 Functions 65.48% 1958/2990
🟡 Lines
79.56% (-0.01% 🔻)
11205/14084
Show files with reduced coverage 🔻
St.
File Statements Branches Functions Lines
🟢
... / useTxPendingStatuses.ts
83.64% (-0.91% 🔻)
68.33% (-1.67% 🔻)
75%
92.63% (-1.05% 🔻)

Test suite run success

1550 tests passing in 206 suites.

Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 371afbd

@@ -35,7 +36,8 @@ export const FallbackHandler = (): ReactElement | null => {

const hasFallbackHandler = !!safe.fallbackHandler
const isOfficial =
hasFallbackHandler && safe.fallbackHandler?.value === fallbackHandlerDeployment?.networkAddresses[safe.chainId]
safe.fallbackHandler &&
fallbackHandlerDeployments?.networkAddresses[safe.chainId].includes(safe.fallbackHandler.value)
const isTWAPFallbackHandler = safe.fallbackHandler?.value === TWAP_FALLBACK_HANDLER
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know you did not introduce this. But this check is too simplified. There are many chains where no Extensible Fallback handler is deployed e.g. Base.
Maybe we should only allow this on Mainnet, Gnosis Chain, Sepolia and Arbitrum for now as those are the chains where CoW exists?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wouldn't isTWAPFallbackHandler be false on those other chains where its not deployed which is the expected behaviour?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But it just compares an hard coded address:

export const TWAP_FALLBACK_HANDLER = '0x2f55e8b20D0B9FEFA187AA7d00B6Cbe563605bF5'

There are no checks that this address is a contract on a chain so this will always be true when you replay a twap Safe for instance in case someone sets one up with the twap fallback handler.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These are the networks where that fallback handler is deployed:
https://github.com/cowprotocol/composable-cow/blob/main/networks.json

Copy link
Member Author

@usame-algan usame-algan Sep 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah I see. Then lets harden the condition by also checking that the chainId matches one of the deployed networks. I hard-coded the list of those networks provided by the link.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also added some tests for the twap fallback handler message

@usame-algan usame-algan requested a review from schmanu September 30, 2024 13:12
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ function asDecimal(amount: number | bigint, decimals: number): number {

export const TWAP_FALLBACK_HANDLER = '0x2f55e8b20D0B9FEFA187AA7d00B6Cbe563605bF5'

// https://github.com/cowprotocol/composable-cow/blob/main/networks.json
export const TWAP_FALLBACK_HANDLER_NETWORKS = ['1', '100', '11155111', '42161']
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: We could also use a mapping chainId -> address here. But maybe we can change it if there are ever multiple addresses.

@usame-algan usame-algan merged commit e8e0f67 into epic/multichain-safes Oct 1, 2024
11 of 13 checks passed
@usame-algan usame-algan deleted the official-fallback-handler branch October 1, 2024 09:45
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 1, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants