feat(ctb): FDG bond safety mode
Overview
Adds a safety mode to the FaultDisputeGame that can be triggered by the SuperchainConfig's guardian role. This mode will return all bonds back to their submitters when claimCredit is called. This is intended to mitigate situations where the honest challenger is playing a very high-stakes dispute game, and there is risk of losing a massive amount of money due to a bug in the system.
Semantic Changes
- A new function,
enableSafetyMode, has been added. This function may only be called by theGuardian.- This function toggles the
safetyModeflag.
- This function toggles the
- When
claimCreditis called:- If
safetyModeis false, the_recipient'screditis distributed to them. - If
safetyModeis true, the_recipient'sbondsare returned to them.
- If
Open Questions
- The
Guardianrole is slow-moving, and requires multisig signers to gather. Do we want a new role for this action? - What should the
BOND_PAYOUT_DELAYbe? - The safety mode flag is currently per-game. This should likely live in another contract so that it may be set globally?
TODO
- [ ] Have the
op-challengerwait theBOND_PAYOUT_DELAYafter a game has resolved to claim their bonds.
Codecov Report
Attention: 13 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Comparison is base (
100ec14) 28.96% compared to head (9d57158) 16.47%. Report is 7 commits behind head on develop.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #9591 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 28.96% 16.47% -12.50%
============================================
Files 161 119 -42
Lines 7046 5130 -1916
Branches 1287 1138 -149
============================================
- Hits 2041 845 -1196
+ Misses 4899 4210 -689
+ Partials 106 75 -31
| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| cannon-go-tests | ? |
|
| chain-mon-tests | 27.14% <ø> (ø) |
|
| common-ts-tests | ? |
|
| contracts-bedrock-tests | 0.64% <0.00%> (-0.01%) |
:arrow_down: |
| contracts-ts-tests | 12.25% <ø> (ø) |
|
| core-utils-tests | ? |
|
| sdk-next-tests | 41.53% <ø> (ø) |
|
| sdk-tests | 41.53% <ø> (ø) |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
| Files | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| ...ts-bedrock/src/dispute/PermissionedDisputeGame.sol | 0.00% <ø> (ø) |
|
| ...ages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SuperchainConfig.sol | 0.00% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
| ...contracts-bedrock/src/dispute/FaultDisputeGame.sol | 0.00% <0.00%> (ø) |
Walkthrough
Walkthrough
The recent updates focus on integrating the SuperchainConfig across multiple components to enhance system flexibility and security. These changes introduce a new BOND_PAYOUT_DELAY constant, a bonds mapping, and a safetyMode flag. The enhancements aim to refine dispute resolution mechanisms by incorporating bond payout delays and enabling a safety mode for heightened security measures. The version update to "0.6.0" signifies significant functional improvements.
Changes
| Files | Summary |
|---|---|
Deploy.s.sol |
Added _superchainConfig initialization with SuperchainConfig. |
.../dispute/FaultDisputeGame.sol, .../dispute/PermissionedDisputeGame.sol |
- Added SuperchainConfig import and declaration.- Updated constructors to include _superchainConfig.- Introduced BOND_PAYOUT_DELAY, bonds mapping, safetyMode flag, and updated version to "0.6.0".- Enhanced dispute resolution with bond payout delay and safety mode features. - Added tests for the new functionalities. |
.../libraries/DisputeErrors.sol |
Added BondDelayNotExpired and UnauthorizedCaller error types. |
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?
Tips
Chat
There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
- Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.Generate unit-tests for this file.
- Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag
@coderabbitaiin a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:@coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.@coderabbitai modularize this function.
- PR comments: Tag
@coderabbitaiin a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:@coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository from git and render them as a table.@coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.@coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.@coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.
CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
@coderabbitai pauseto pause the reviews on a PR.@coderabbitai resumeto resume the paused reviews.@coderabbitai reviewto trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.@coderabbitai resolveresolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.@coderabbitai helpto get help.
Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)
- You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a
.coderabbit.yamlfile to the root of your repository. - The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
- If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation:
# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json
CodeRabbit Discord Community
Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
What's the status of this PR? Are we still using this approach for safety mode?
Nah, don't think so. Will move into draft for reference in case the other plan doesn't work out.
