tx: 7702 examples #4039
tx: 7702 examples #4039
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Co-authored-by: Avdhesh Charjan <[email protected]>
gabrocheleau
force-pushed
the
tx/7702-examples
branch
from
10ac6b5 to
723e789
Compare
| const common = new Common({ | ||
| chain: Mainnet, | ||
| hardfork: Hardfork.Cancun, | ||
| eips: [7702], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this works, I think for the examples we should just run it on Prague and not on Cancun+7702.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, adjusted
| // ─── sign authorization for each ────── | ||
| const targets: PrefixedHexString[] = [DAI, UNISWAP_V3_ROUTER, WETH] | ||
| const auths = targets.map((address, i) => | ||
| eoaCode7702SignAuthorization({ chainId: '0x1', address, nonce: `0x${i}` }, privateKey), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is incorrect. This will delegate the user EOA first to DAI, then to UNISWAP_V3_ROUTER, and then to WETH (in the same transaction). The net result is that the EOA will point to WETH. We want to point it to the BATCH_CONTRACT, such that if we call into our EOA it will batch-call the targets (as implied by the encoding)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah you are so right! That's an oversight on my part, adjusting.
| const UNISWAP_V3_ROUTER = '0xE592427A0AEce92De3Edee1F18E0157C05861564' | ||
| const WETH = '0xC02aaa39b223FE8D0A0e5c4F27EaD9083C756Cc2' | ||
| const COLD_WALLET = `0x${'42'.repeat(20)}` | ||
| const BATCH_CONTRACT = '0xYourBatchContractAddressHere' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A note should be placed here what the BATCH_CONTRACT does and the interface. It seems that there is a method which seems to have this type signature: executeBatch([calldata,address][]) (I'm not sure if this is a valid ABI signature)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That signature does not seem to be valid. Will add a note.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think a signature which works could be executeBatch(bytes[],address[]). If you use MulticallV3 then use aggregate(Call[]) (not sure how solidity constructs/decontstructs these structures): https://github.com/EthereumClassicDAO/multicall3/blob/743c0015fac7f9331c24ca8bd8075e49f19f2ddd/src/Multicall3.sol#L41
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just seeing this now, but yes I've adjusted to bytes[] address[], fixes the next steps too
| 'function transfer(address _to, uint256 _value) public returns (bool success)', | ||
| ] | ||
| const routerAbi = ['function exactInput(bytes)'] | ||
| const batchAbi = ['function executeBatch(bytes[] calldata) external'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh nvm this interface is here. But it seems that the encoding done in this example is done differently 🤔
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // ─── build & send your single 7702 tx ─────────────────────────────── | ||
| const batchData = batchContract.encodeFunctionData('executeBatch', [calls]) as `0x${string}` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The calldata is mapped to an array (which is fine). How does the executeBatch know which target it should call?
| gasLimit: 1_000_000n, | ||
| maxFeePerGas: parseUnits('10', 9), // 10 gwei | ||
| maxPriorityFeePerGas: parseUnits('5', 9), // 5 gwei | ||
| to: BATCH_CONTRACT, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will call the batch contract. It will therfore interact with WETH/DAI/Uniswap from the batch contract. We want to interact with it from our EOA (which is why EOA should be delegated to BATCH_CONTRACT)
| nonce: '0x1', | ||
| yParity: '0x1', | ||
| r: ones32, | ||
| s: ones32, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This does not show how to sign the authorization list item, which is necessary, because the authorization signer does not necessarily have to be the tx signer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, I just refactored this one initially (didn't actually work on it) so that it had at least correct types. We can certainly improve it.
| console.log( | ||
| '🔀 Batch swap DAI→WETH → your wallet:', | ||
| execResult.exceptionError ? '❌ Failed' : '✅ Success', | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could also query the VM here to see the changes (deposit to wallet for instance)
No description provided.