Add an ERC7802Bridge #174
Add an ERC7802Bridge #174
Conversation
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| abstract contract ERC7802BridgeCustody is ERC7802Bridge { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| abstract contract ERC7802BridgeCustody is ERC7802Bridge { | |
| abstract contract ERC20CustodialBridge is ERC7802Bridge { |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: check that bridge includes an address ? prevent override ? | ||
| function registerRemote(address token, bytes memory bridge, bytes memory remote) public virtual onlyOwner { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TODO: onlyOwnerOrToken modifier.
| @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ | |||
| // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT | |||
|
|
|||
| pragma solidity ^0.8.27; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| pragma solidity ^0.8.27; | |
| pragma solidity ^0.8.26; |
| mapping(address token => mapping(bytes chain => bytes bridge)) private _remoteBridges; | ||
| mapping(address token => mapping(bytes chain => bytes remote)) private _remoteTokens; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| mapping(address token => mapping(bytes chain => bytes bridge)) private _remoteBridges; | |
| mapping(address token => mapping(bytes chain => bytes remote)) private _remoteTokens; | |
| mapping(address token => mapping(bytes chain => bytes)) private _remoteBridges; | |
| mapping(address token => mapping(bytes chain => bytes)) private _remoteTokens; |
| require(remote.length > 0, ERC7802BridgeMissingRemote(token, chain)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: check that gateway is not address(0) ? prevent override ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we're checking that gateway is not address(0) here I don't think we should check it on the getGateway. I'm generally unsure whether to check address(0) in the first place.
| require(msg.sender == getGateway(srcChain), ERC7802BridgeInvalidGateway()); | ||
|
|
||
| // identify local token (requested for mint) and validate sender is the correct bridge | ||
| (, address token) = local.parseEvmV1(); // todo: check chainid ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should indeed check chainId. One can register a bridge that may have the same address in another chain (perhaps different code), so getRemoteBridge will return true.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function _distributeTokens(address token, address to, uint256 amount) internal virtual { | ||
| IERC7802(token).crosschainMint(to, amount); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we validate that to is not the gateway itself? Otherwise we should add a sweep function (not sure if I like the sweep function though)
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| abstract contract ERC7802BridgeCustody is ERC7802Bridge { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this version is necessary if the main bridge can receive tokens itself. Otherwise, I would call this one an ERC7802Passive since the main difference is whether tokens are actively sent to a recipient or passively claimed by the recipient
Based on #171