7 Commits (49fc06e65e14ce43d3c42bfb2415d71418214a58)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Yorke Rhodes	8e4f2bbe18	Make immutable implementation of factories public (#2761) ... Fixes https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/hyperlane-monorepo/issues/2759	1 year ago
Yorke Rhodes	c91f589e4e	Add unenroll to Router (#2760) ... Fixes https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/issues/issues/630	1 year ago
Yorke Rhodes	1ecfc46ce2	v3 Router SDK changes (#2752) ... ### Description - Reorganize solidity directory structure for clarity - Updates router apps (token and helloworld) with changes from https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/hyperlane-monorepo/pull/2749 ### Drive-by changes - Merges the hyperlane-token package to solidity and sdk ### Backward compatibility No (removed token package) ### Testing - Unit Tests - Instrumented coverage	1 year ago
Yorke Rhodes	e582357de8	Make Domain Routing ISM enumerable (#2644)	1 year ago
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	2900737c8f	Add HyperlaneIsmFactoryDeployer (#2068) ... ### Description This PR separates ISM deployment from HyperlaneCoreDeployer. Furthermore, it adds support for Routing and Aggregation ISM deployment via a recursive IsmConfig type. The MultisigIsm address is removed from the artifacts. Instead, the default ISM will be fetched at run time and compared against a provided IsmConfig. If there are *any* differences, a new defaultIsm will be deployed. ### Drive-by changes None ### Related issues None ### Backward compatibility _Are these changes backward compatible?_ No _Are there any infrastructure implications, e.g. changes that would prohibit deploying older commits using this infra tooling?_ Yes, the default LegacyMultisigIsms will no longer be supported by the checker. The governance script will instead deploy a routing ISM and set that as the default ISM. ### Testing _What kind of testing have these changes undergone?_ Unit 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