This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 30, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Introducing Protocol Interfaces and Implementations of IPAccount, IPAccountRegistry #1
Introducing Protocol Interfaces and Implementations of IPAccount, IPAccountRegistry #1
Changes from 2 commits
fa4b76a
420df95
37f7e1e
b050d22
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
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.
I think we should standardize use of custom errors throughout our codebase.
Also I think to replace line 37 it's more semantically clear to 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.
I agree, we should move to custom universal errors instead of literal strings.
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.
@kingster-will 👆
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.
I think the semantics of this function are slightly confusing, since for
execute
the internal_isValidSigner
function is used for checking who is authorized to call a specific module.Whereas for this we are checking if a signer is authorized to act on behalf of the account overall. Unless you are implying that
address(0)
represents "all modules"? If so could make that clearerThere 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.
What is the meaning of
to_
? Is it supposed to be the module address? Given we are not using it right now, I think it would be simpler to just authenticate based on the caller (signer) and function selector.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.
do you want to use the standard reference here? https://github.com/erc6551/reference/tree/main/src/interfaces