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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: [v0.8-develop] per validation hook data #66
feat: [v0.8-develop] per validation hook data #66
Changes from all commits
b579102
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
mega smol but could we rename "i" to
preValidationHookIndex
since we use it for a few comparisons?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.
Thoughts on introducing an additional parameter here for both
preUserOpValidationHook
andvalidateUserOp
similar to the runtime path? That would allow us to keep the signature the same. What are the downsides?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.
It just adds to the gas cost, and I'm not sure we have a good use case for the entire sig at the moment. With the runtime path, there wasn't anywhere else we could put it.
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.
Echoing my previous comment to potentially rename this to
preValiationHookIndex
or something-- not a hard req by any means.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.
The recursion implemented here is neat! This appears to be the the most efficient approach, aside from key-value structure, which is not feasible within internal functions.
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.
We can probably move
_RESERVED_VALIDATION_DATA_INDEX
into the library and expose a helper function, something likehasNext()
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.
How would that look? The
getIndex
function is used to determine if the next segment applies for the current function (pre-validation hook or validation function), or for a later function. I think ahasNext
function would also need to return the index, so it seems pretty similar to the existing setup.