Skip to content

[WIP] improve(utils): Avoid recomputing relayData hashes #657

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
pxrl wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

[WIP] improve(utils): Avoid recomputing relayData hashes #657

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9ac70d0
improve(utils): Avoid recomputing relayData hashes
pxrl May 31, 2024
dfbd93e
lint
pxrl May 31, 2024
b29e208
Fix test
pxrl May 31, 2024
cea26c2
lint
pxrl May 31, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions src/interfaces/SpokePool.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ export interface RelayData {
fillDeadline: number;
exclusiveRelayer: string;
exclusivityDeadline: number;
_hash?: Record<number, string>;
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@pxrl pxrl May 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It'd be a fair bit more efficient for this to be a simple string, but the RelayData type doesn't include the destinationChainId, so the same RelayData object can map to multiple hashes depending on the value of destinationChainId. In the interests of safety it seems best to use a record, but I'd love to find a way to use a string instead.

Copy link
Contributor

@mrice32 mrice32 May 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does that mean the hash really should be one level higher where the destination chain is present (i.e. the hash should be in fill and deposit)?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@pxrl pxrl Jun 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, that's a good option. It introduces a little bit of duplication but it's nothing major. I'll think about another way of passing in the hash if it's not defined in RelayData.

}

export interface Deposit extends RelayData {
Expand Down
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion src/utils/SpokeUtils.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -216,7 +216,9 @@ export async function getDepositIdAtBlock(contract: Contract, blockTag: number):
* @returns The corresponding RelayData hash.
*/
export function getRelayDataHash(relayData: RelayData, destinationChainId: number): string {
return ethersUtils.keccak256(
relayData._hash ??= {};

return relayData._hash[destinationChainId] ??= ethersUtils.keccak256(
ethersUtils.defaultAbiCoder.encode(
[
"tuple(" +
Expand Down