Integrated new contracts #322
Conversation
| args := createMockExecutorArgs() | ||
| providedNonce := uint64(8346) | ||
| depositNonce := uint64(100) | ||
| depositData := string([]byte{bridgeCore.MissingDataProtocolMarker}) + "testData" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do you also add the MissingDataProtocolMarker, this should not be added when calling the deposit function on solidity, only the actual data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just for test purposes, this will emphasize the fact that anything except the missing marker will be wrapped. on L466 (same test) we have this code:
expectedDepositData := []byte{bridgeCore.DataPresentProtocolMarker, 0, 0, 0, byte(len(depositData))}
expectedDepositData = append(expectedDepositData, []byte(depositData)...)the expectedDepositData is 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x09 01 't' 'e' 's' 't' 'D' 'a' 't' 'a'
| if dataLen == 0 { | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
| if dataLen == 1 && buff[0] == bridgeCore.MissingDataProtocolMarker { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
on solidity we should not specify the MissingDataProtocolMarker, that and the size should be added by the relayers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will preserve this, as agreed, found the bug on L500, thus. Added integration test, also
| transfer.DisplayableData = "" | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
| if dataLen == 1 && buff[0] == bridgeCore.MissingDataProtocolMarker { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| if dataLen == 1 && buff[0] == bridgeCore.MissingDataProtocolMarker { | |
| // this check is optional, but brings an optimisation to reduce the gas used in case of a bad callData | |
| if dataLen == 1 && buff[0] == bridgeCore.MissingDataProtocolMarker { |
Reference PR: multiversx/mx-bridge-eth-sc-rs#188