Require Statements Revert Custom Errors

[TradMod]

FEATURE REQUEST

Abstract

The require are very helpful and easy to understand, but the problem with require statements is that they store a string as an error message. And strings are not much gas optimized. To make the contract gas optimized we use custom errors within if-else statements. Which are not quite sometimes easy to understand especially when they get rooted in.

Motivation

I think we can solve this problem by making Require statements revert Custom Error instead of string.
Check This:

pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

error Owner__ChorChorChor();

contract Owner {
    address public owner = msg.sender;

    function newOwner(address _newOwner) public OnlyOwner {
        owner = _newOwner;
    }

    modifier OnlyOwner { //Instead of this 
        require(owner == msg.sender, "Chor! Chor! Chor!");
        _;
    }
    modifier OnlyOwner { // this would be perfect
        require(owner == msg.sender, revert Owner__ChorChorChor(); );
        _;
    }
    
}

Specification

IDk C++, I wish I could make a PR with this functionality.

Backwards Compatibility

N/A

[cameel]

Related: #7877 (comment)

We considered this but so far we could not agree on a good syntax.

[jubeira]

(I'm sorry to revive a closed thread, but...)

Not being able to use require with the new custom errors is indeed a barrier when porting code from older solc versions.
Denying the existing logic and using if / revert doesn't help readability IMO, and adds one more step which can be error prone when porting large codebases. I know you can opt out and keep using strings, but it's a pity to do so given the advantages of the new custom errors.

I don't know how hard it would be to implement or if there are any considerations that are being left out, but moving forward with a proposal like the one described in #7877 (comment) would be very much appreciated.

[basememara]

I would like this revisited as well please because I believe it is a safety issue. Most dev don't use the braces around the if-statement when using revert mimic the one-liner require syntax: if (owner != msg.sender) revert ChorChorChor()). This is dangerous if anything was learned from the notorious Apple SSL bug. The if-statement doesn't really guard like the require statement. It also makes you think backwards.. instead of "requiring" for a condition to be true to continue, you have to think opposite of require for the if-statement condition. This is very error prone for people who want to migrate from strings to custom errors. Not to mention goes against general coding styles to do the one-line if-statement.

Naturally I tried to do require(owner == msg.sender, ChorChorChor()). Is it possible to overload the require keyword? If not then revert(owner != msg.sender, ChorChorChor()) although that is too similar and have to think opposite require?

In any case, please reconsider due to the risks of allowing braces in an if-statement to be optional which is what most devs are resorting to which doesn't really guard the code after it like require does.

[0xClandestine]

require(condition, error) ✅
require(condition, revert error) ❌