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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Supporting ERC4337 #15
Supporting ERC4337 #15
Changes from 19 commits
6155758
3f6bb86
6cc8ee9
7233251
8471c7b
4d2da3f
7617c6c
23a7118
c6a8cba
aa74975
616b390
3f62152
aef5e96
7a41f50
d796319
9a0c218
36dd9be
eeade6b
d173aa2
c211fc8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Should this be folded into
roll.py
?Not really important rn.
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.
Can you add an issue for this & link it here?
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.
Can you add an issue for this and link it here?
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.
#38
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.
Just curious, what does
--mode private
do?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.
Means it's a private mempool for the bundler (i.e. only our own bundler will be able to see the transactions sent to this RPC endpoints as they are not broadcasted)
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 it good to always make the deployer the same as the paymaster signature address? Haven't really thought about this in earnest.
I know people like to talk about "secure signers" as option for holding live keys (e.g. paymaster signer) and it might be a bit of a pain to use such a signer for deployment? Is that a good reason to separate them?
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.
This is a good question, let's revisit it: #40
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.
Could you extend the usage of this to other parts of the codebase where we clone? Or add an issue for it is equally good!
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.
Already done :)
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.
Oh I see, there is no mempool involved!
This is good, below is just me spitballing on what how I thought this would be + how it could be:
Is there a way in which the paymaster could submit the transaction to the bundler directly? I guess the updated userop needs to be signed by the user right?
Before seeing this, my very naive flow assumption was:
I think the ideal flow for what we're doing would be to:
This would be an ideal one-request flow from the user's perspective.
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.
You mean users send the signed UserOp to paymaster, and the paymaster submit to the entrypoint contract directly?
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.
Yes exactly!