5 Commits (14e4719f00be336cd7b7b74a342d212fe6a2c0a4)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Kunal Arora	c032b8ba27	chore: refactor MessagIdHook/ISM tests into a common `ExternalBridgeTest` contract (#4490) ... ### Description We currently have 6 different versions of ISMs derived from AbstractMessageIdAuthorizedIsm: - OPL2ToL1 - ArbL2ToL1 - OPStack (L1->L2) - ERC5164 - LayerZero - PolygonPOS But all of them have their own custom test suite right now, with widely overlapping testing areas. For standardizing the tests, I've created a base test contract `ExternalBridgeTest` that handles the common tests. This has a few benefits: - harder to miss tests for known pitfalls like msg.value or asynchronicity assumption for verifyMessageId - less code duplication with each additional Ism I have moved OPL2ToL1, ArbL2ToL1, OPStack, and ERC5164 to the new base test, and I'll forgo the rest for now because of the time sensitivity of audit remediations. I've created an issue tracking the remaining work here: https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/issues/issues/1384 ### Drive-by changes None ### Related issues Related to https://github.com/chainlight-io/2024-08-hyperlane/issues/3 ### Backward compatibility Yes ### Testing Unit	3 months ago
Kunal Arora	445b6222c0	fix: `ArbL2ToL1Ism` will support msg.value (#4328) ... ### Description - Added support for msg.value by rearranging the `releaseValueToRecipient()` in the verify call ### Drive-by changes - uncommented out `test_postDispatch_revertWhen_notLastDispatchedMessage` test ### Related issues <!-- - Fixes #[issue number here] --> ### Backward compatibility <!-- Are these changes backward compatible? Are there any infrastructure implications, e.g. changes that would prohibit deploying older commits using this infra tooling? Yes/No --> ### Testing Unit tests	3 months ago
Kunal Arora	e151b5f9ac	feat: support Arbitrum L2->L1 message using CLI self-relay option (#3986) ... ### Description - trying for null metadata (in case where the L2->L1 call has been executed by a third party) otherwise waiting for the challenge period and then fetching the outbox proof using the `ArbL2ToL1MetadataBuilder` - deriving ArbL2ToL1 hook and ism - deriving custom hook from reciptISM when ismType == ARB_L2_TO_L1 ### Drive-by changes - modifying status command in CLI to write context for self-relaying messages ### Related issues - fixes https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/issues/issues/1290 ### Backward compatibility Yes ### Testing Testnet from arbitrumsepolia -> sepolia - l2->l1 tx using selfrelay (if already preverified by 3rd party relayer) https://sepolia.etherscan.io/tx/0xa6af2355facedb102e1fb7275249ab714dadacd4264daa170801469cf22f2bc0 - l2->l1 tx using direct executeTransaction call https://sepolia.etherscan.io/tx/0x42bb0eefcbd0f78b5048052c911746d13da15a9fb9659775d5d9df1e116a2a3d --------- Co-authored-by: Yorke Rhodes <yorke@hyperlane.xyz> Co-authored-by: Yorke Rhodes <email@yorke.dev>	4 months ago
Kunal Arora	90598ad449	feat: remove outbox param from `ArbL2ToL1Ism` (#4178) ... ### Description - outbox contract can be derived from arbitrum's bridge contract so it's not useful to pass in ### Drive-by changes None ### Related issues None ### Backward compatibility Yes ### Testing Unit	4 months ago
Kunal Arora	f733379488	feat: support Arbitrum L2->L1 post dispatch hook (#3853) ... ### Description - Contract support for the enabling postDispatch hook with the Arbitrum nitro bridge from L2 to L1 - asynchronously via executeTransaction call to verifyMessageId first and then the relayer calling the verify message with no metadata (note: this supports msg.value) - synchronously via a single verify call which in turn calls executeTransaction on outbox to gets the message verified in the verifyMessageId (note: this doesn't support msg.value as ism.verify isn't payable) - Added a script for deploying the hook and ISM since the sdk doesn't support it yet. ### Drive-by changes - changing the type from "rate_limited_hook" to "RATE_LIMITED" to maintain consistency ### Related issues - fixes https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/hyperlane-monorepo/issues/2846 ### Backward compatibility Yes ### Testing Unit and e2e with arbitrumsepolia->sepolia	5 months ago