hyperlane-monorepo

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Trevor Porter	1a64cef37e	Refactor key management in infra and key funder (#3023 ) ### Description * Remove the `bank` role, which we haven't used since the inception of abacus / hyperlane * Big changes to `key-utils.ts` so that there's a single source of truth on what kind of keys are used depending on the role & chain. Before this was sprinkled in a few different places * You can now get an object of `{ [chain]: { [role]: keys[] } }`, so it's super clear what kind of key relates to which chain. For example, before we would use the AWS-based relayer key for EVM chains, and then a GCP-based relayer key for non-EVM chains. But this wasn't really honored by key funder - it had no way of knowing to only fund the AWS relayer on EVM chains, and only fund the GCP relayer on non-EVM chains. Same situation for Kathy, where we want to use AWS keys for EVM chains but the GCP key for non-EVM chains * On v2 and prior to that we were using the AWS-based key for Kathy. Originally, we also launched v3 this way. However it was changed on v3 to use the GCP key for Kathy, causing us to fund both types of addresses on v3. This makes it more clear that we should be using the AWS-based key for Kathy on EVM chains ### Drive-by changes <!-- Are there any minor or drive-by changes also included? --> ### 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 <!-- What kind of testing have these changes undergone? None/Manual/Unit Tests -->	12 months ago
Kunal Arora	e06fe0b327	fix:enable `DefaultFallbackRoutingIsm` through non-factory deployment (#3009 ) ### Description - `DefaultFallbackRoutingIsm` needs the mailbox address which meant `DefaultFallbackRoutingIsmFactory` needed the mailbox address which is not ideal. So, I switched to non-factory deployments for this specific ISM type. - CLI does the ISM deployment inside core deployment instead of ISM first and core then. - Using the coreDeployer's `cachedAddresses` to store the latest ie toplevel ISM. ### Drive-by changes - fixed bug in `ismFactory.fromAddressMap` to not use the multiprovider filtered by contract map. This is undesirable as CLI user can provide chain selection and artifacts which doesn't include all the chains in the configs (and when we call `multiprovider.getDomainId` for the origin which may now be missing from the filtered MP, we get an error). ### Related issues - fixes https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/hyperlane-monorepo/issues/2895 ### Backward compatibility Yes ### Testing Manual through CLI	12 months ago
Yorke Rhodes	b14f997810	Graduate to yarn 4 🧶 (#2899 ) Co-authored-by: J M Rossy <jm.rossy@gmail.com> Fixes https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/issues/issues/687 Fixes #2228 Fixes https://github.com/hyperlane-xyz/issues/issues/704	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	af88ae66c3	Fix rebase	1 year ago
Yorke Rhodes	e582357de8	Make Domain Routing ISM enumerable (#2644 )	1 year ago
Asa Oines	ec63ed19c5	Fix CI flakiness (#2269 ) ### Description - Don't panic if E2E test fails to fetch a metric - Run coverage commands sequentially ### Drive-by changes - Cleans up some lint errors in forge tests	2 years ago
Asa Oines	1e9d0be9b3	Fix DomainRoutingIsm tests (#2255 ) ### Description Fixes a bug in the DomainRoutingIsm tests that curiously only started showing in CI a few days ago. ### Drive-by changes None	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

9 Commits (82a90c120c413cc8108ce7aa6e8015cd30158780)