-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 534
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
Evm 785: enable and disable access lists in the runtime #1839
Evm 785: enable and disable access lists in the runtime #1839
Conversation
b651de0
to
0a17c51
Compare
0a17c51
to
741c3a5
Compare
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.
LGTM
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.
Generally looking good to me. However I'd consider renaming SuperAdminAllowBlock
to SuperAdminAccessLists
everywhere.
8a61025
to
0387a8b
Compare
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.
Where's the superadmin stored?
a48f746
to
7a759df
Compare
In genesis file in configuration. If we need to store that info in storage I think it would be easier to put superadmin for each list (otherwise we need to create another storage address just for that superadmin) |
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.
Overall LGTM but there's some consistency details:
- Bridge SCs function naming is different see https://github.com/0xPolygon/core-contracts/blob/main/contracts/lib/AccessList.sol#L20, this can be confusing, we can adapt it in both sides, even though I like this naming better
- Consider emitting the event too
- Now that we're introducing the concept of super admin would be great to make him the owner of the bridge ACL, I have doubt on this tho.
Some of the considerations can be implemented in follow-up PRs but the minimum set of changes to be implemented here are:
|
bda2c97
to
4e072ae
Compare
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.
After latest modifications and several conversations with Igor, we've implemented the minimum set of changes that makes sense from the UX perspective, fixed several issues and refactored some parts, this PR should be ready to be merged.
Some extra improvements will be described in an RFC and implemented in the following weeks.
LGTM
Description
--access-lists-owner
flag).Genesis command example:
7.1 That will be the case even if bridge allow list and bridge block list are empty
Changes include
Checklist
Testing
Documentation update
Please link the documentation update PR in this section if it's present, otherwise delete it