-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
Add ERC7579 Executor modules #121
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
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Gonzalo Othacehe <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Gonzalo Othacehe <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Gonzalo Othacehe <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Gonzalo Othacehe <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Gonzalo Othacehe <[email protected]>
I changed the Build is failing since the MultisigMocks need to be adapted, but it's still unclear how: abstract contract ERC7579MultisigExecutorMock is ERC7579Executor, ERC7579Multisig, EIP712 {
bytes32 private constant EXECUTE_OPERATION =
keccak256("ExecuteOperation(address account,bytes32 mode,bytes executionCalldata,bytes32 salt)");
function _validateExecution(
address account,
Mode mode,
bytes calldata executionCalldata,
bytes32 salt
) internal view virtual returns (bool) {
// We're missing the `signature` here
return _validateMultisignature(account, _getExecuteTypeHash(account, mode, executionCalldata, salt), signature);
}
function _getExecuteTypeHash(
address account,
Mode mode,
bytes calldata executionCalldata,
bytes32 salt
) internal view virtual returns (bytes32) {
return
_hashTypedDataV4(
keccak256(abi.encode(EXECUTE_OPERATION, account, Mode.unwrap(mode), executionCalldata, salt))
);
}
} For the modules to be successful, |
This reverts commit 700558d.
Fixed by differentiating the |
Happy with the current design and it's good enough for the community version. Given the schedule, I think we should move on and merge so I can start writing ERC-7579 guides that include the social recovery use case. Also I should start playing around with this on Wizard. |
Co-authored-by: Gonzalo Othacehe <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Gonzalo Othacehe <[email protected]>
More generalized alternatives to #93 and #85