feat(protocol): move prover assignment verification to hook #15208
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Daniel Wang <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: David <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Roger <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Daniel Wang <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: adaki2004 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: D <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: D <[email protected]>
| // Run all hooks. | ||
| // Note that address(this).balance has been updated with msg.value, | ||
| // prior to any code in this function has been executed. | ||
| uint256 ethBalance = address(this).balance - msg.value; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think no ETH is stored in this contract, so this could simply be address(this).balance? Same thing below I think where instead of having to keep track of msgValue, it could always just be address(this).balance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
True. I added some comments and removed ethBalance
| uint256 ethBalance = address(this).balance - msg.value; | ||
|
|
||
| // Run hooks | ||
| for (uint256 i; i < params.hookCalls.length; ++i) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it necessary/useful to support multiple hooks? Seems like only a single hook will probably be used, and even then this single hook itself can call into multiple other smart contracts if necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think one hook is good enough for default scenario, but I want to support multiple hooks so proposers, with their imagination, can do extra things.
Brecht, David, Dani, I'm trying to prototype this hook idea so more logics can be extracted away from the protocol. Take a look at this, so later we can brainstorm a bit. No rush though.