4 Commits (395a069e0de7ec35118f6f65ef598e3b4026ece1)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Yorke Rhodes	50f04db1fa	Make merkle proofs optional on multisig ISM (#2173) ... ### Description Validators currently sign `(root, index)` checkpoints and during verification, a `message` is passed as calldata, an `id()` is derived, and a `proof` of `id()` at `index` in `root` is verified This provides “all or nothing” censorship resistance guarantees because a validator can only sign roots to allow any contained messages to be processed. We have considered alternatives where validators sign `message` directly and we lose censorship resistance in exchange for eliminating merkle proof verification gas costs. However, if validators sign `(root, index, message)` tuples, we can skip merkle proof verification on the destination chain while still maintaining censorship resistance by providing two valid metadata formats: 1. existing validator signatures and merkle proof verification of inclusion 2. including merkle proof verification for pathway where validators are censoring `message` It’s worth noting the validator is required to index event data to produce this new signature format. However, this does not require historical indexing and new validators being spun up can simply begin indexing from tip. See https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/hyperlane-monorepo/pull/2187 for validator changes See https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/hyperlane-monorepo/pull/2248 for relayer and e2e test changes ### Drive-by changes Merkle index also optional ### Related issues - Fixes https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/hyperlane-monorepo/issues/2192 ### Backward compatibility - new ISM deployment is necessary (we could upgrade implementation in theory) - Validator and relayer upgrades ### Testing Unit (fuzz) Tests, E2E tests	2 years ago
Asa Oines	f8d645e580	Add RoutingIsm (#1985) ... ### Description This PR adds `IRoutingIsm` and three implementations: - AbstractRoutingIsm, which folks building RoutingIsms can inherit from - DomainRoutingIsm, which routes based on message origin - InterchainAccountIsm, which routes based on the ISM in the InterchainAccountMessage ### Drive-by changes - Some related testing changes ### Related issues - Fixes #1521 ### Backward compatibility _Are these changes backward compatible?_ Yes _Are there any infrastructure implications, e.g. changes that would prohibit deploying older commits using this infra tooling?_ None ### Testing _What kind of testing have these changes undergone?_ Unit Tests	2 years ago
Asa Oines	63558af85d	Use interfaces in agents (#2022) ... ### Description Move agents to use contract interfaces artifacts rather than the artifacts themselves. This ensures we don't anything that we can't guarantee is in every implementation of that interface. Particularly relevant for IGPs and ISMs. ### Drive-by changes - Moves `solidity/interfaces` to `solidity/contracts/interfaces` so that their artifacts can be used in `update_abis.sh` ### Related issues - #1757 ### Backward compatibility _Are these changes backward compatible?_ Yes _Are there any infrastructure implications, e.g. changes that would prohibit deploying older commits using this infra tooling?_ None ### Testing _What kind of testing have these changes undergone?_ None	2 years ago
Asa Oines	e8d90775f7	Add Aggregation ISM (#1737) ... ### Description This PR introduces the Aggregation ISM, which requires interchain messages to be verified by an m-of-n ISM set. This PR also introduces a new MultisigISM, which does not make use of the "commitment" optimization in its metadata. The previous MultisigISM has been moved to LegacyMultisigISM. Both AggregationISM and MultisigISM have abstract contracts that require `valuesAndThreshold` implementations. This PR implements versions with static m-of-n sets, using the EIP-3448 MetaProxy standard. These implementations are intended to be combined with a future RoutingISM implementation to replace LegacyMultisigISM. ### Drive-by changes - genhtml in solidity code coverage ### Related issues - Fixes #1522 ### Backward compatibility _Are these changes backward compatible?_ Yes ### Testing _What kind of testing have these changes undergone? Unit Tests	2 years ago