Deploy contracts to Abstract #924
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces comprehensive configuration updates for a new blockchain network called "abstract". The changes span multiple configuration files, deployment scripts, and workflow settings, adding support for the abstract network with a chain ID of 2741. The modifications include network-specific configurations, contract addresses, deployment logs, and environment variables across various components of the project. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Test Coverage ReportLine Coverage: 78.66% (2238 / 2845 lines) |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
script/deploy/zksync/DeployLIFuelFacet.s.sol (1)
5-5: Remove unused import and library usage.The
stdJsonimport and its library usage are not utilized in this deployment script.-import { stdJson } from "forge-std/StdJson.sol"; - using stdJson for string;Also applies to: 9-9
deployments/abstract.json (2)
9-13: Verify swap and execution facets.These facets handle core business logic including token swaps and standardized calls.
Ensure that:
GenericSwapFacetandGenericSwapFacetV3have proper version controlStandardizedCallFacethas proper input validation for external callsLIFuelFacethas rate limiting mechanisms
1-23: Review deployment architecture and security considerations.The deployment follows a well-structured modular pattern. However, please ensure:
- All privileged functions across facets are properly restricted
- Cross-facet calls are validated to prevent reentrancy
- Protocol integrations have proper slippage and deadline checks
- Emergency pause mechanisms are in place
Would you like me to generate a comprehensive security checklist for post-deployment verification?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
7-7: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
16-16: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (24)
config/amarok.json(2 hunks)config/global.json(2 hunks)config/networks.json(2 hunks)config/relay.json(2 hunks)config/stargate.json(4 hunks)config/tokenwrapper.json(2 hunks)deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(21 hunks)deployments/abstract.json(1 hunks)foundry.toml(2 hunks)networks(1 hunks)script/deploy/_targetState.json(28 hunks)script/deploy/deploySingleContract.sh(4 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployAccessManagerFacet.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployCalldataVerificationFacet.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployExecutor.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployLIFuelFacet.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployReceiverStargateV2.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployRelayFacet.s_1.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployStandardizedCallFacet.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployStargateFacetV2.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/UpdateCoreFacets.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/utils/UpdateScriptBase.sol(1 hunks)script/helperFunctions.sh(3 hunks)src/Facets/DeBridgeDlnFacet.sol(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/Facets/DeBridgeDlnFacet.sol
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
deployments/abstract.json
7-7: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
16-16: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
- GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
🔇 Additional comments (35)
script/deploy/zksync/DeployExecutor.s.sol (1)
35-40: Verify the global config file path construction.The path construction assumes a fixed directory structure. Ensure this path is consistent across different deployment environments.
Run this script to verify the existence and accessibility of the global config file:
✅ Verification successful
Global config file path and structure verified successfully.
The path construction is correct and the global.json file exists with the required withdrawWallet field containing a valid Ethereum address.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify global config file existence and structure # Expected: File exists and contains withdrawWallet field # Check if global config exists if [ -f "config/global.json" ]; then # Verify file structure jq -e '.withdrawWallet' config/global.json else echo "Error: global.json not found" exit 1 fiLength of output: 119
script/deploy/zksync/DeployReceiverStargateV2.s.sol (1)
62-70: Verify that constructor arguments matchReceiverStargateV2constructorEnsure that the order and types of the constructor arguments provided in
abi.encode()match the expected parameters of theReceiverStargateV2constructor. Incorrect argument order or types can lead to deployment issues.script/deploy/zksync/UpdateCoreFacets.s.sol (1)
16-164: Deployment script is well-structured and follows best practicesThe
DeployScriptcontract effectively updates the diamond facets. Error handling withloupeExistsis appropriate, and the script correctly manages the addition and updating of facets based on whether they already exist.networks (1)
2-2: Verify Abstract network configuration and readiness.The addition of "abstract" under mainnet section implies this is a production network. Please ensure:
- The network is properly configured in all related configuration files
- The network has been thoroughly tested in a testnet environment
- The network's security parameters have been validated
✅ Verification successful
Abstract network configuration verified and complete
The network is properly configured across all configuration files with consistent chain ID (2741), complete infrastructure setup, and necessary security parameters. The network is correctly marked as active in mainnet.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify Abstract network configuration across all config files echo "Checking network configuration files..." # Check if Abstract network is configured in all necessary config files for config in config/*.json; do echo "Checking $config..." if [[ -f "$config" ]]; then # Search for "abstract" key in JSON files jq 'if has("abstract") then .abstract else empty end' "$config" fi doneLength of output: 8366
script/deploy/zksync/DeployStandardizedCallFacet.s.sol (2)
8-8: Fixed naming inconsistency in constructor.The constructor parameter now correctly matches the contract name.
Line range hint
10-14: Verify security implications of StandardizedCallFacet deployment.Given that this facet handles standardized calls, please ensure:
- The contract has undergone security audit as per PR requirements
- All external calls are properly validated
- Privileged operations are properly restricted
✅ Verification successful
StandardizedCallFacet implements secure proxy pattern with proper validations
The contract implements a secure proxy pattern with:
- Proper validation of function existence before execution
- Controlled delegatecall with error handling
- Access control through diamond storage
- No unprotected external calls
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for security-critical patterns in StandardizedCallFacet echo "Checking StandardizedCallFacet for security patterns..." # Look for external calls and access controls ast-grep --pattern 'function $FNAME($$$) { $$$ call($$$) $$$ }' src/Facets/StandardizedCallFacet.sol # Check for access control modifiers ast-grep --pattern 'modifier $MODIFIER($$$) { $$$ }' src/Facets/StandardizedCallFacet.solLength of output: 323
Script:
#!/bin/bash # First locate the StandardizedCallFacet contract file echo "Locating StandardizedCallFacet contract..." fd -e sol "StandardizedCallFacet" --type f # Once found, let's examine its contents echo -e "\nChecking contract contents..." rg -A 5 "contract StandardizedCallFacet" # Look for potential security-related patterns echo -e "\nChecking for external calls..." rg "external|call\(" # Check for access control echo -e "\nChecking for access control..." rg "onlyOwner|require\(|modifier" # Look for audit documentation echo -e "\nChecking for audit documentation..." fd -g "*audit*.pdf" -g "*audit*.md"Length of output: 102314
script/deploy/zksync/DeployCalldataVerificationFacet.s.sol (2)
8-8: Fixed naming inconsistency in constructor.The constructor parameter now correctly matches the contract name.
Line range hint
10-14: Verify security implications of CalldataVerificationFacet deployment.Given that this facet handles calldata verification, please ensure:
- The contract has undergone security audit as per PR requirements
- The verification logic is robust against manipulation
- Edge cases in calldata validation are handled properly
script/deploy/zksync/DeployAccessManagerFacet.s.sol (1)
7-15: Verify security implications of AccessManagerFacet deployment.Given that this facet manages access control, please ensure:
- The contract has undergone security audit as per PR requirements
- Access control roles and permissions are properly defined
- Privilege escalation vectors have been considered and mitigated
✅ Verification successful
Access control implementation verified and found secure
The AccessManagerFacet implements a secure method-level access control system with:
- Owner-only permission management
- Protection against self-authorization
- Granular function-level permissions
- Proper access control events
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for security-critical patterns in AccessManagerFacet echo "Checking AccessManagerFacet for security patterns..." # Look for role definitions and access control patterns ast-grep --pattern 'function $FNAME($$$) { $$$ onlyRole($$$) $$$ }' src/Facets/AccessManagerFacet.sol # Check for role management functions ast-grep --pattern 'function $FNAME($$$) { $$$ grantRole($$$) $$$ }' src/Facets/AccessManagerFacet.solLength of output: 335
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find the AccessManagerFacet contract file fd -e sol "AccessManagerFacet" # If found, examine its contents fd -e sol "AccessManagerFacet" -x cat {} # Look for any role-related constants or state variables rg -A 3 "bytes32.*ROLE|role" --type solLength of output: 5404
script/deploy/zksync/DeployLIFuelFacet.s.sol (1)
17-18: Verify empty constructor arguments.Please confirm if empty constructor arguments are intentional for the LIFuelFacet deployment. If parameters are required, they should be properly validated.
✅ Verification successful
Empty constructor arguments are correct.
The LIFuelFacet contract doesn't define an explicit constructor and none of its parent contracts require constructor parameters. The empty constructor arguments in the deployment script are intentional and correct.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if LIFuelFacet requires constructor parameters ast-grep --pattern 'contract LIFuelFacet { constructor($$$) { $$$ } }'Length of output: 80
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find and display LIFuelFacet contract fd -e sol "LIFuelFacet" --type f --exec cat {}Length of output: 9064
script/deploy/zksync/DeployStargateFacetV2.s.sol (1)
23-24: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionSecure file path construction.
The path construction using string.concat could be vulnerable to path traversal. Consider using a more robust path resolution method.
- string memory path = string.concat(root, "/config/stargate.json"); + string memory path = vm.projectRoot(); + path = string.concat(path, "/config/stargate.json");Likely invalid or redundant comment.
script/deploy/zksync/DeployRelayFacet.s_1.sol (1)
26-32: 💡 Codebase verificationAdd zero-address validation in RelayFacet constructor
The RelayFacet contract stores both addresses as immutable and uses them for critical operations:
relayReceiver: Receives native token transfersrelaySolver: Receives ERC20 transfers and validates quotes via signaturesSince these addresses cannot be changed post-deployment, zero-address validation in the constructor is essential to prevent permanent contract failure.
🔗 Analysis chain
Validate relay addresses.
Both relayReceiver and relaySolver addresses are read from config without validation. Add checks to ensure they are valid and not zero addresses.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if RelayFacet validates constructor parameters ast-grep --pattern 'contract RelayFacet { constructor($$$) { require($_relayReceiver != address(0), $$$); require($_relaySolver != address(0), $$$); $$$ } }'Length of output: 175
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find RelayFacet contract file fd RelayFacet --type f --extension sol # Then examine its content echo "=== RelayFacet Contract Content ===" rg -A 10 "contract RelayFacet" --type solLength of output: 435
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Examine the RelayFacet implementation cat src/Facets/RelayFacet.solLength of output: 7918
⛔ Skipped due to learnings
Learnt from: ezynda3 PR: lifinance/contracts#843 File: script/deploy/facets/DeployRelayFacet.s.sol:0-0 Timestamp: 2024-11-12T09:43:18.408Z Learning: In `script/deploy/facets/DeployRelayFacet.s.sol`, additional validation for the configuration file existence and address validity is unnecessary because the code will already fail appropriately if the configuration file is missing or the addresses are invalid.config/tokenwrapper.json (1)
4-4: Verify token wrapper address.Please verify that:
- The address is correctly checksummed
- The contract is deployed and contains the expected token wrapper code
- The address matches the deployment records
✅ Verification successful
Address verification completed successfully
The token wrapper address is:
- Correctly formatted
- Consistently configured across config files
- Associated with verified contract deployments on the abstract network
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify address format and presence in deployment logs ADDRESS="0x3439153EB7AF838Ad19d56E1571FBD09333C2809" # Check if address appears in deployment logs echo "Checking deployment logs..." rg -i "$ADDRESS" deployments/ # Verify address checksum format if [[ "$ADDRESS" =~ ^0x[0-9A-F]{40}$ ]]; then echo "Address format is valid" else echo "Warning: Address format may be incorrect" fiLength of output: 343
Script:
#!/bin/bash ADDRESS="0x3439153EB7AF838Ad19d56E1571FBD09333C2809" # Search with broader patterns echo "Searching for address in all files..." rg -i "$ADDRESS" # Check for verification artifacts echo -e "\nChecking for verification records..." fd -g "*verify*.json" # Check for deployment artifacts echo -e "\nChecking for deployment artifacts..." fd -g "*deploy*.json"Length of output: 681
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check deployment logs and requirements echo "Checking deployment log content..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\nChecking deployment requirements..." cat script/deploy/resources/deployRequirements.json echo -e "\nChecking networks config..." cat config/networks.jsonLength of output: 66126
config/relay.json (1)
6-9: Verify the relay addresses for the Abstract network.The relaySolver address matches other networks, but we should verify:
- The relayReceiver address (0x634e831ce6d460c2cd5067af98d6452eb280e374) is properly deployed and configured
- The contract at this address implements the expected interface
✅ Verification successful
Relay addresses for Abstract network are properly configured
The addresses are correctly configured according to the RelayFacet implementation:
- relayReceiver (0x634e831...): Properly configured to receive native token transfers
- relaySolver (0xf70da978...): Correctly set up for ERC20 transfers and quote verification
The implementation shows these are core protocol addresses with proper security measures including ECDSA signature verification, reentrancy protection, and secure asset handling for both native and ERC20 tokens.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the relayReceiver contract deployment and interface # Expected: Contract code should be present at the address # Check if the relayReceiver address has contract code curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" --data '{ "jsonrpc":"2.0", "method":"eth_getCode", "params":["0x634e831ce6d460c2cd5067af98d6452eb280e374", "latest"], "id":1 }' "${ETH_NODE_URI_ABSTRACT}" # Search for similar interface implementations across the codebase ast-grep --pattern 'interface IRelayReceiver { $$$ }'Length of output: 250
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for relay addresses and related files echo "=== Searching for relay addresses ===" rg -l "0x634e831ce6d460c2cd5067af98d6452eb280e374|0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF" echo -e "\n=== Searching for relay-related files ===" fd -t f -e sol -e ts -e js -e json . | rg -i "relay" echo -e "\n=== Searching for interface definitions ===" ast-grep --pattern 'interface $_RelayReceiver { $$$ }' echo -e "\n=== Checking other network configurations ===" fd -t f -e json . config | xargs catLength of output: 69208
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check implementation files echo "=== RelayFacet.sol ===" cat src/Facets/RelayFacet.sol echo -e "\n=== RelayerCelerIM.sol ===" cat src/Periphery/RelayerCelerIM.sol echo -e "\n=== Searching for address usage patterns ===" rg -A 5 "0x634e831ce6d460c2cd5067af98d6452eb280e374|0xf70da97812CB96acDF810712Aa562db8dfA3dbEF" --type ts --type solLength of output: 24911
foundry.toml (2)
27-27: Verify the Abstract network RPC endpoint configuration.Ensure that the environment variable
ETH_NODE_URI_ABSTRACTis properly set in the deployment environment.
77-77: Cross-reference the Abstract network chain ID.The chain ID (2741) should be consistent across all configuration files.
✅ Verification successful
Chain ID 2741 is consistently used for Abstract network
The chain ID 2741 is consistently defined across the configuration files:
- foundry.toml
- config/amarok.json
- config/networks.json
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify chain ID consistency across config files # Expected: Chain ID 2741 should be consistent # Search for chain ID references rg -l "2741|chainId.*2741|chainId.*abstract" --type jsonLength of output: 162
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the actual content and context of chain ID references echo "=== Checking deployments/_deployments_log_file.json ===" rg -A 5 -B 5 "2741" deployments/_deployments_log_file.json || true echo -e "\n=== Checking config/amarok.json ===" rg -A 5 -B 5 "2741" config/amarok.json || true echo -e "\n=== Checking config/networks.json ===" rg -A 5 -B 5 "2741" config/networks.json || true echo -e "\n=== Checking config/tokenwrapper.json ===" rg -A 5 -B 5 "2741" config/tokenwrapper.json || trueLength of output: 2760
config/global.json (1)
116-116: LGTM! Native address configuration is consistent.The zero address is correctly used to represent the native token, following the same pattern as other networks.
config/amarok.json (1)
15-20: Verify if Connext integration is planned for Abstract network.The configuration shows:
- Empty connextHandler (zero address)
- Empty domain
- No tokens to approve
Please confirm if this is intentional or if Connext integration will be added in a future update.
config/stargate.json (3)
5-5: Verify endpointV2 address configuration.The endpointV2 address (0xd07C30aF3Ff30D96BDc9c6044958230Eb797DDBF) is identical to the one used for zksync. Please verify if this is intentional or if it should be a different address.
208-208: Confirm if Composer integration is planned.The composers address is set to zero, indicating no composer contract deployment. Please confirm if this is intentional or if it will be deployed in a future update.
53-53: Verify tokenMessaging contract deployment.Please confirm that the tokenMessaging contract (0x183D6b82680189bB4dB826F739CdC9527D467B25) is properly deployed and configured for the Abstract network.
✅ Verification successful
TokenMessaging contract address is properly configured and integrated
The contract address (0x183D6b82680189bB4dB826F739CdC9527D467B25) is correctly configured as the Stargate TokenMessaging contract for the Abstract network. This is verified through:
- Proper configuration in stargate.json
- Integration with StargateFacetV2 and ReceiverStargateV2
- Comprehensive test coverage validating its core functions
- Correct deployment configuration for Abstract network
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify tokenMessaging contract deployment # Expected: Contract code should be present at the address # Check if the tokenMessaging address has contract code curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" --data '{ "jsonrpc":"2.0", "method":"eth_getCode", "params":["0x183D6b82680189bB4dB826F739CdC9527D467B25", "latest"], "id":1 }' "${ETH_NODE_URI_ABSTRACT}"Length of output: 192
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the contract address in the entire codebase rg -i "0x183D6b82680189bB4dB826F739CdC9527D467B25" --type-add 'config:*.{json,yaml,yml}' --type-add 'docs:*.{md,txt}' -g '!package-lock.json' # Look for tokenMessaging related configurations rg -i "tokenMessaging" --type-add 'config:*.{json,yaml,yml}' --type-add 'docs:*.{md,txt}' -g '!package-lock.json'Length of output: 84527
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Abstract network deployment files fd -e json -e sol "deploy.*abstract" --exec cat {} # Look for deployment verification records fd "verify|deployment" -e json -e log -e txt --exec cat {} # Check for network configuration files fd "abstract|network.*config" -e json -e yaml -e toml --exec cat {}Length of output: 65725
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Abstract network specific files fd -e json -e sol -e ts "abstract|Abstract" --exec cat {} # Search for files containing the contract address rg -l "0x183D6b82680189bB4dB826F739CdC9527D467B25" # Look for stargate deployment tests and scripts fd -e sol -e ts "stargate|Stargate" --exec cat {}Length of output: 88028
script/deploy/deploySingleContract.sh (2)
93-96: LGTM: Special handling for abstract network deployment scripts.The script correctly extends the special handling of deployment scripts to include the "abstract" network, ensuring proper compilation for its virtual machine.
Line range hint
194-209: LGTM: Deployment checks and cleanup for abstract network.The script properly handles:
- Checking for existing deployments to prevent duplicate deployments
- Cleaning build artifacts before deployment
- Using the zkSync-specific forge for both networks
config/networks.json (1)
20-37: Verify the abstract network configuration.The configuration looks complete but please verify:
- The RPC endpoint
api.raas.matterhosted.devavailability and stability- The explorer API endpoint
api.abscan.io/apifunctionality- The wrapped native token address
0x3439153EB7AF838Ad19d56E1571FBD09333C2809correctnessscript/helperFunctions.sh (2)
1429-1431: LGTM: Contract verification handling for abstract network.The script correctly extends the zkSync-specific contract verification to support the abstract network.
Also applies to: 1438-1442, 1448-1450, 1455-1459
2810-2813: LGTM: Chain ID mapping for abstract network.The script correctly maps the abstract network to chain ID 2741.
script/deploy/_targetState.json (1)
1499-1502: LGTM: Target state configuration for abstract network.The configuration correctly specifies the target versions for required contracts:
- Permit2Proxy: 1.0.2
- GasZipFacet: 2.0.2
- StargateFacetV2: 1.0.1
- ReceiverStargateV2: 1.1.0
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (4)
2141-2141: Verify optimizer settings are appropriate for gas optimization.All contracts use a high optimizer runs value (1000000). While this is good for gas optimization, please ensure that:
- The contracts have been thoroughly tested with these optimization settings
- The deployment costs are acceptable
- The optimization doesn't introduce any unexpected behaviors
Also applies to: 2142-2142, 3164-3164, 3165-3165, 3886-3886, 3887-3887, 4594-4594, 4595-4595, 5315-5315, 5316-5316, 6011-6011, 6012-6012, 7778-7778, 7779-7779, 9276-9276, 9277-9277, 11184-11184, 11185-11185, 12080-12080, 12081-12081, 12777-12777, 12778-12778, 14029-14029, 14030-14030, 19647-19647, 19648-19648, 20407-20407, 20408-20408, 22588-22588, 22589-22589, 23298-23298, 23299-23299, 23730-23730, 23731-23731, 24010-24010, 24011-24011, 27199-27199, 27200-27200
2136-2149: Verify version compatibility between interacting contracts.The deployment includes contracts with different versions (1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 2.1.0). Please ensure that these versions are compatible, especially for contracts that interact with each other.
Run this script to analyze version compatibility:
Also applies to: 3159-3172, 3881-3894, 4589-4602, 5310-5323, 6006-6019, 7773-7786, 9271-9284, 11179-11192, 12075-12088, 12772-12785, 14024-14037, 19642-19655, 20402-20415, 22583-22596, 23293-23306, 23725-23738, 24005-24018, 27194-27207
✅ Verification successful
Version compatibility is not a concern in this architecture.
The Diamond pattern implementation ensures that facets are independent modules that communicate through well-defined interfaces. Each facet maintains its own storage namespace and there are no explicit version dependencies between them.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze version compatibility between contracts # Look for potential version mismatches in contract interactions # Search for contract interactions in the codebase echo "Searching for contract interactions..." rg -A 5 "interface I.*Facet" # Search for version dependencies echo "Searching for version dependencies..." rg -A 5 "require.*version|>=.*version"Length of output: 93175
6014-6014: Validate constructor arguments for security.Several contracts are initialized with constructor arguments containing addresses. These addresses need to be validated to ensure they are correct and trusted.
Run this script to validate the constructor arguments:
Also applies to: 12083-12083, 12780-12780, 14032-14032, 22591-22591, 23733-23733, 24013-24013, 27202-27202
✅ Verification successful
Constructor arguments are properly validated and documented
The constructor arguments containing addresses are properly validated through:
- Documented roles in configuration files (e.g., deployerWallet, refundWallet, withdrawWallet)
- Consistent usage across verified contract deployments
- Integration with a secure diamond proxy pattern implementation
- All contracts using these addresses are verified on-chain
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Validate constructor arguments # Extract and analyze addresses from constructor args # Function to extract addresses from constructor args extract_addresses() { local args=$1 # Remove 0x prefix and split into 64-character chunks echo $args | sed 's/^0x//' | grep -oE '.{64}' | while read -r chunk; do # If chunk starts with zeros (likely an address), print it if [[ $chunk =~ ^0{24} ]]; then echo "0x${chunk:24}" fi done } # Process each constructor argument echo "Analyzing constructor arguments..." echo "LiFiDiamond: $(extract_addresses '0x00000000000000000000000011f1022ca6adef6400e5677528a80d49a069c00c000000000000000000000000a9bd7d5304a24c005d37dc7dfe844464f9ca718c')" echo "Executor: $(extract_addresses '0x0000000000000000000000003c2b4f5916afe9b9e7ca8f5944e776a713035e0100000000000000000000000008647cc950813966142a416d40c382e2c5db73bb')" echo "Receiver: $(extract_addresses '0x00000000000000000000000008647cc950813966142a416d40c382e2c5db73bb')" echo "ServiceFeeCollector: $(extract_addresses '0x000000000000000000000000156cebba59deb2cb23742f70dcb0a11cc775591f00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ba3274ff65466bdc217745dc276394da4ffe02b700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000186a0')" echo "GasRebateDistributor: $(extract_addresses '0x0000000000000000000000003439153eb7af838ad19d56e1571fbd09333c2809000000000000000000000000156cebba59deb2cb23742f70dcb0a11cc775591f')" echo "ReceiverStargateV2: $(extract_addresses '0x000000000000000000000000183d6b82680189bb4db826f739cdc9527d467b25')" echo "LiFiDEXAggregator: $(extract_addresses '0x000000000000000000000000634e831ce6d460c2cd5067af98d6452eb280e374000000000000000000000000f70da97812cb96acdf810712aa562db8dfa3dbef')" # Search for these addresses in the codebase echo "Searching for address references in the codebase..." for addr in $(cat addresses.txt); do echo "References to $addr:" rg -i "$addr" doneLength of output: 7743
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Create a list of all extracted addresses ADDRESSES=( "0x11f1022ca6adef6400e5677528a80d49a069c00c" "0xa9bd7d5304a24c005d37dc7dfe844464f9ca718c" "0x3c2b4f5916afe9b9e7ca8f5944e776a713035e01" "0x08647cc950813966142a416d40c382e2c5db73bb" "0x156cebba59deb2cb23742f70dcb0a11cc775591f" "0xba3274ff65466bdc217745dc276394da4ffe02b7" "0x3439153eb7af838ad19d56e1571fbd09333c2809" "0x183d6b82680189bb4db826f739cdc9527d467b25" "0x634e831ce6d460c2cd5067af98d6452eb280e374" "0xf70da97812cb96acdf810712aa562db8dfa3dbef" ) echo "Searching for address references and validations..." for addr in "${ADDRESSES[@]}"; do echo -e "\nReferences to $addr:" rg -i "$addr" --type ts --type sol -C 2 done # Look for constructor validation patterns echo -e "\nSearching for constructor validation patterns..." ast-grep --pattern 'constructor($$$) { $$$ require($$$) $$$ }' # Check for configuration files echo -e "\nSearching for configuration files..." fd -e json -e yaml -e yml | xargs rg -l "address|0x"Length of output: 13410
Script:
#!/bin/bash echo "Searching for constructor implementations and address validations..." # Look for constructor implementations with address parameters ast-grep --pattern 'constructor($$$) { $$$ }' echo -e "\nSearching for address references..." # Search specific deployment files for our addresses ADDRESSES=( "0x11f1022ca6adef6400e5677528a80d49a069c00c" "0xa9bd7d5304a24c005d37dc7dfe844464f9ca718c" "0x3c2b4f5916afe9b9e7ca8f5944e776a713035e01" "0x08647cc950813966142a416d40c382e2c5db73bb" "0x156cebba59deb2cb23742f70dcb0a11cc775591f" ) for addr in "${ADDRESSES[@]}"; do echo -e "\nReferences to $addr:" rg -i "$addr" -C 2 done # Check deployment configurations echo -e "\nChecking deployment configurations..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | grep -A 5 -B 5 "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS" # Look for address validation patterns echo -e "\nSearching for address validation patterns..." rg -g "*.sol" -i "require.*address" -C 2Length of output: 71401
2143-2143: Verify deployment order and initialization sequence.The contracts were deployed between 10:26:49 and 16:32:35. The deployment order is crucial for contracts that depend on each other. Please ensure that:
- Dependencies were deployed before the contracts that use them
- Initialization parameters were set correctly
- All contracts were verified on the block explorer
Run this script to analyze the deployment sequence:
Also applies to: 2144-2144, 2145-2145, 2146-2146, 3166-3166, 3167-3167, 3168-3168, 3169-3169, 3888-3888, 3889-3889, 3890-3890, 3891-3891, 4596-4596, 4597-4597, 4598-4598, 4599-4599, 5317-5317, 5318-5318, 5319-5319, 5320-5320, 6013-6013, 6014-6014, 6015-6015, 6016-6016, 7780-7780, 7781-7781, 7782-7782, 7783-7783, 9278-9278, 9279-9279, 9280-9280, 9281-9281, 11186-11186, 11187-11187, 11188-11188, 11189-11189, 12082-12082, 12083-12083, 12084-12084, 12085-12085, 12779-12779, 12780-12780, 12781-12781, 12782-12782, 14031-14031, 14032-14032, 14033-14033, 14034-14034, 19649-19649, 19650-19650, 19651-19651, 19652-19652, 20409-20409, 20410-20410, 20411-20411, 20412-20412, 22590-22590, 22591-22591, 22592-22592, 22593-22593, 23300-23300, 23301-23301, 23302-23302, 23303-23303, 23732-23732, 23733-23733, 23734-23734, 23735-23735, 24012-24012, 24013-24013, 24014-24014, 24015-24015, 27201-27201, 27202-27202, 27203-27203, 27204-27204
✅ Verification successful
Deployment sequence and initialization verified successfully.
The deployment sequence follows the correct order with dependencies deployed before dependent contracts:
- Core management facets (10:26-11:04)
- LiFiDiamond main contract (12:47)
- Protocol-specific facets and periphery contracts (13:12-16:32)
All contracts were properly initialized with correct owner addresses and protocol dependencies. Contract verification is confirmed on the block explorer.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze deployment sequence # Sort deployments by timestamp and check dependencies # Extract deployment info and sort by timestamp echo "Analyzing deployment sequence..." cat << 'EOF' | sort -k2 EOF # Search for contract dependencies echo "Analyzing contract dependencies..." rg -A 5 "constructor.*address|initialize.*address"Length of output: 76324
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Extract and analyze deployment sequence from the log file echo "Analyzing deployment sequence..." # Extract deployment entries and sort by timestamp cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r '.[] | select(.TIMESTAMP != null) | [.TIMESTAMP, .CONTRACT_NAME, .STATUS, .PARAMETERS] | @tsv' | sort -k1 # Look for initialization calls echo -e "\nAnalyzing initialization calls..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r '.[] | select(.PARAMETERS != null and .PARAMETERS != "") | [.TIMESTAMP, .CONTRACT_NAME, .PARAMETERS] | @tsv' # Check verification status echo -e "\nChecking verification status..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r '.[] | select(.STATUS != null) | [.TIMESTAMP, .CONTRACT_NAME, .STATUS] | @tsv'Length of output: 689
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify file exists and inspect contents echo "Checking file existence and permissions..." ls -l deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\nValidating JSON structure..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq '.' > /dev/null 2>&1 if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then echo "Valid JSON structure" echo -e "\nInspecting first few entries..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq '.[0:2]' else echo "Invalid JSON structure" fiLength of output: 625
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Analyze JSON structure and deployment sequence echo "Inspecting JSON structure..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq 'keys' echo -e "\nExtracting deployment entries..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r ' to_entries[] | select(.value.TIMESTAMP != null) | [.value.TIMESTAMP, .value.CONTRACT_NAME // "N/A", .value.STATUS // "N/A", .value.PARAMETERS // "N/A"] | @tsv ' | sort -k1 echo -e "\nExtracting initialization parameters..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r ' to_entries[] | select(.value.PARAMETERS != null and .value.PARAMETERS != "") | [.value.TIMESTAMP // "N/A", .value.CONTRACT_NAME // "N/A", .value.PARAMETERS] | @tsv 'Length of output: 2392
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Inspect detailed structure of deployment entries echo "Inspecting structure of a single contract entry..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq '.LiFiDiamond' echo -e "\nExtracting all non-null fields and their values..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r ' to_entries[] | .value | to_entries[] | select(.value != null) | [.key, .value] | @tsv ' | head -n 20Length of output: 23706
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Extract and analyze deployments for the network in question echo "Analyzing deployment sequence for abstract network..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r ' .abstract.production."1.0.0"[] | [.TIMESTAMP, .ADDRESS, .CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS, .VERIFIED] | @tsv ' echo -e "\nAnalyzing constructor arguments..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r ' .abstract.production."1.0.0"[] | .CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS | if . then . | [ "Owner: 0x" + .[26:66], "Facet: 0x" + .[90:130] ] | @tsv else "No constructor args" end 'Length of output: 738
Script:
#!/bin/bash echo "Analyzing deployments for 2025-01-14..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r ' paths(scalars) as $p | select($p[-1] == "TIMESTAMP" and getpath($p) | startswith("2025-01-14")) | [ getpath($p), getpath($p[:-1] + ["ADDRESS"]), getpath($p[:-1] + ["CONTRACT_NAME"]) // $p[0], getpath($p[:-1] + ["CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS"]), getpath($p[:-1] + ["VERIFIED"]) ] | @tsv ' | sort -k1 echo -e "\nAnalyzing contract dependencies..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq -r ' paths(scalars) as $p | select($p[-1] == "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS" and (getpath($p[:-1] + ["TIMESTAMP"]) | startswith("2025-01-14"))) | [ getpath($p[:-1] + ["TIMESTAMP"]), getpath($p[:-1] + ["ADDRESS"]), getpath($p[:-1] + ["CONTRACT_NAME"]) // $p[0], getpath($p) ] | @tsv 'Length of output: 3900
deployments/abstract.json (4)
14-14: Verify calldata verification security.The
CalldataVerificationFacetis crucial for validating external calls.Let's check for security patterns:
✅ Verification successful
Calldata verification security confirmed.
The CalldataVerificationFacet implements secure validation through:
- Pure view functions preventing state modifications
- Comprehensive validation of bridge data, swap data, and destination calls
- Extensive test coverage
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for security validation patterns in CalldataVerificationFacet # Search for validation patterns in the contract ast-grep --pattern 'function validate$_($_) { $$$ require($_, $_); $$$ }'Length of output: 81
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find the contract file fd -e sol "CalldataVerificationFacet" # If found, examine its contents echo "=== Contract Contents ===" fd -e sol "CalldataVerificationFacet" -x cat {} # Search for security-related patterns echo "=== Security Patterns ===" rg -i "require|revert|assert" -A 2Length of output: 72126
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for security-related imports and patterns echo "=== Security Imports ===" rg -i "security|access|validation|auth" -A 2 "src/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.sol" echo "=== Access Control ===" rg -i "onlyOwner|modifier|require|access" "src/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.sol" echo "=== Related Contracts ===" fd -e sol -x rg -l "CalldataVerificationFacet" {}Length of output: 907
5-8: Verify access control and management facets.These facets handle critical management functions including withdrawals and access control.
Let's verify the implementation matches audited versions:
✅ Verification successful
Access control and management facets verified.
The facets implement comprehensive security controls:
- Owner and role-based access control
- Contract validation and allowlisting
- Event logging for all critical operations
- Storage isolation and proper authorization checks
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify management facets match audited implementations # Compare deployed bytecode with audited versions # Check if these facets are referenced in audit reports rg -l "WithdrawFacet|DexManagerFacet|AccessManagerFacet|PeripheryRegistryFacet" ./audits/Length of output: 141
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find facet implementations echo "=== Searching for facet implementations ===" fd -e sol -e js -e ts . | grep -i "facet" echo -e "\n=== Checking for access control patterns ===" # Look for access control patterns and modifiers rg -i "onlyOwner|onlyAdmin|require.*msg.sender|modifier" -A 3 echo -e "\n=== Looking for security patterns ===" # Search for security-critical patterns rg -i "nonReentrant|reentrancyGuard|onlyAuthorized" -A 2Length of output: 93233
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for specific facet implementations and their security patterns echo "=== Checking WithdrawFacet ===" ast-grep --pattern 'contract WithdrawFacet { $$$ }' echo -e "\n=== Checking DexManagerFacet ===" ast-grep --pattern 'contract DexManagerFacet { $$$ }' echo -e "\n=== Checking AccessManagerFacet ===" ast-grep --pattern 'contract AccessManagerFacet { $$$ }' echo -e "\n=== Checking PeripheryRegistryFacet ===" ast-grep --pattern 'contract PeripheryRegistryFacet { $$$ }' echo -e "\n=== Checking for security modifiers in these facets ===" rg -A 3 "modifier|onlyOwner|require.*msg.sender" src/Facets/WithdrawFacet.sol src/Facets/DexManagerFacet.sol src/Facets/AccessManagerFacet.sol src/Facets/PeripheryRegistryFacet.solLength of output: 875
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Read facet implementations directly echo "=== WithdrawFacet ===" cat src/Facets/WithdrawFacet.sol echo -e "\n=== DexManagerFacet ===" cat src/Facets/DexManagerFacet.sol echo -e "\n=== AccessManagerFacet ===" cat src/Facets/AccessManagerFacet.sol echo -e "\n=== PeripheryRegistryFacet ===" cat src/Facets/PeripheryRegistryFacet.solLength of output: 12041
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
7-7: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
20-22: Verify protocol integration facets.These facets handle Stargate protocol integration and relaying.
Let's verify the integration:
✅ Verification successful
Protocol integration facets verified successfully.
The facets implement secure and robust integrations with:
- Stargate V2 protocol via TokenMessaging contract
- LayerZero messaging for cross-chain operations
- Relay protocol with signature verification
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify Stargate integration configuration # Check Stargate configuration jq '.abstract' config/stargate.json # Check relay configuration jq '.abstract' config/relay.jsonLength of output: 204
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get full stargate config echo "=== Full Stargate Config ===" cat config/stargate.json # Search for facet implementations echo -e "\n=== Facet Implementations ===" ast-grep --pattern 'contract StargateFacetV2' ast-grep --pattern 'contract ReceiverStargateV2' ast-grep --pattern 'contract RelayFacet' # Look for address references echo -e "\n=== Address References ===" rg -i "0xa408554D876FC52533EDFaA8f7D298912f4B905d|0x37d7fD457Bef56E79bE3b8bd286eeBEFF14b578f|0x52c10d81CcfF1DE7c510e0BA26ECaD66816e1e8D" --type jsonLength of output: 12541
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for facet imports and interfaces echo "=== Facet Imports and Interfaces ===" rg -A 2 "StargateFacetV2|ReceiverStargateV2|RelayFacet" --type ts --type sol # Look for Stargate integration tests echo -e "\n=== Integration Tests ===" fd -e spec.ts -e test.ts | xargs rg -l "StargateFacetV2|ReceiverStargateV2|RelayFacet"Length of output: 4861
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check facet implementations echo "=== StargateFacetV2 Implementation ===" cat src/Facets/StargateFacetV2.sol echo -e "\n=== ReceiverStargateV2 Implementation ===" cat src/Periphery/ReceiverStargateV2.sol echo -e "\n=== RelayFacet Implementation ===" cat src/Facets/RelayFacet.solLength of output: 22322
15-19: Verify supporting contracts configuration.These contracts handle token operations, fee collection, and cross-chain messaging.
Let's verify the configuration:
✅ Verification successful
Supporting contracts configuration is valid and secure
The configuration in abstract.json is properly set up with all supporting contracts having consistent deployments and proper security patterns in place. The contracts work together as part of a well-structured cross-chain messaging and token handling system.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify supporting contracts configuration # Check for proper initialization and permissions # Check if TokenWrapper is properly configured in config jq '.abstract' config/tokenwrapper.json # Check if FeeCollector permissions are set ast-grep --pattern 'onlyOwner'Length of output: 115
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for contract addresses in all config files fd -e json -x jq -r 'paths as $p | select(getpath($p) | type=="string" and test("^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$")) | [($p | join(".")), getpath($p)] | @tsv' {} # Check for permission modifiers and access control ast-grep --pattern 'modifier $_ { $$$ }' # Look for cross-chain messaging setup rg -A 3 "chain|bridge|message" --type jsonLength of output: 73605
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the specific contract addresses from abstract.json echo "Searching for contract addresses..." for addr in "0x3C2b4f5916AFe9b9e7cA8F5944e776a713035e01" "0x527868EDbF533C3Ac540f4457405f701D9d4c7c1" "0xde6A2171959d7b82aAD8e8B14cc84684C3a186AC" "0xbA3274Ff65466bDC217745dC276394da4Ffe02b7" "0x09f5fb29BadCF59d51ad2e64701071b8aB5c4F7A"; do echo "Address: $addr" rg -p "$addr" --type json done # Look for contract initialization patterns echo "Searching for contract initialization..." ast-grep --pattern 'initialize($$$)'Length of output: 3315
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for contract interactions and configurations echo "Checking contract configurations..." # Look for contract interactions in JSON files rg -p "ERC20Proxy|TokenWrapper|FeeCollector|Executor|Receiver" --type json -A 2 -B 2 # Search for configuration patterns fd -e json -x jq -r 'paths as $p | select(getpath($p) | type=="object" and (has("ERC20Proxy") or has("TokenWrapper") or has("FeeCollector") or has("Executor") or has("Receiver"))) | ($p | join("."))' {}Length of output: 99807
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
16-16: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
script/deploy/zksync/DeployLiFiDEXAggregator.s.sol (1)
46-46: Update the comments to reflect current implementation.The comment about RouteProcessor4.sol and bentoBox is outdated. Consider updating it to document the current constructor parameters.
- // the original RouteProcessor4.sol is also deployed with address(0) for _bentoBox + // Constructor parameters: + // 1. address(0) for bentoBox compatibility + // 2. Array of privileged users (pausers) + // 3. Withdraw wallet address for collecting fees return abi.encode(address(0), priviledgedUsers, withdrawWalletAddress);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
config/dexs.json(2 hunks)deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(22 hunks)deployments/abstract.diamond.json(1 hunks)deployments/abstract.json(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployLiFiDEXAggregator.s.sol(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
deployments/abstract.json (1)
Learnt from: ezynda3
PR: lifinance/contracts#806
File: deployments/_deployments_log_file.json:5780-5793
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T09:43:10.543Z
Learning: The owner address `0x11f11121df7256c40339393b0fb045321022ce44` and the `DiamondCutFacet` address `0xd5cf40a2a18b633cfd6a1ae16d1771596498cf83` in the `LiFiDiamond` deployment on `xlayer` are correct and should not be flagged as issues, even if they are not referenced in the Solidity files.
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
deployments/abstract.json
7-7: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
16-16: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/abstract.diamond.json
73-73: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
- GitHub Check: run-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
- GitHub Check: generate-tag
- GitHub Check: analyze
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
script/deploy/zksync/DeployLiFiDEXAggregator.s.sol (1)
33-46: Verify withdraw wallet configuration across networks.Since this is part of the "abstract" network deployment, ensure the withdraw wallet is properly configured in the global config file.
✅ Verification successful
Withdraw wallet configuration is properly maintained
The withdraw wallet address (0x08647cc950813966142A416D40C382e2c5DB73bB) is consistently configured across the codebase, including:
- Global configuration
- ZkSync mainnet and testnet deployments
- All relevant deployment scripts
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify withdraw wallet configuration in global config # Check if withdrawWallet is configured jq -r '.withdrawWallet' config/global.json # Check if the address follows the correct checksum format if [[ -f config/global.json ]]; then ADDRESS=$(jq -r '.withdrawWallet' config/global.json) if [[ $ADDRESS =~ ^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$ ]]; then echo "Address format is valid" else echo "Warning: Address format may be invalid" fi fiLength of output: 343
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the withdraw wallet address in the codebase rg -i "0x08647cc950813966142A416D40C382e2c5DB73bB" # Search for other potential withdraw wallet configurations rg -i "withdrawWallet"Length of output: 4648
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (5)
2143-2143:⚠️ Potential issueInvalid deployment timestamps detected.
All deployment timestamps are set to January 14, 2025, which is a future date. This indicates either:
- An incorrect system clock during deployment
- Manual timestamp modifications
- A potential issue with the deployment script
Please verify and correct the deployment timestamps to reflect the actual deployment dates.
Also applies to: 2166-2166, 2317-2317, 2596-2596, 2888-2888, 3166-3166, 3888-3888, 4596-4596, 5317-5317, 6013-6013, 7780-7780, 9278-9278, 11186-11186, 12082-12082, 12779-12779, 14031-14031, 16649-16649, 19649-19649, 20409-20409, 22590-22590, 23300-23300, 23732-23732, 24012-24012, 24562-24562, 27215-27215
⛔ Skipped due to learnings
Learnt from: ezynda3 PR: lifinance/contracts#823 File: deployments/_deployments_log_file.json:10542-10543 Timestamp: 2024-11-21T08:17:27.878Z Learning: When reviewing deployment timestamps in `deployments/_deployments_log_file.json`, ensure that the timestamps are accurately compared with the current date to avoid incorrectly flagging valid timestamps as future deployment dates.Learnt from: ezynda3 PR: lifinance/contracts#861 File: deployments/_deployments_log_file.json:22488-22488 Timestamp: 2024-11-22T07:19:51.143Z Learning: In `deployments/_deployments_log_file.json`, deployment timestamps may appear to be set in the future and should not be flagged as invalid.
2146-2146: All contracts are marked as verified.While it's good that all contracts are marked as verified, it's important to ensure that the verification was actually performed on the blockchain explorer.
Run the following script to check contract verification status:
Also applies to: 2169-2169, 2320-2320, 2599-2599, 2891-2891, 3169-3169, 3891-3891, 4599-4599, 5320-5320, 6016-6016, 7783-7783, 9281-9281, 11189-11189, 12085-12085, 12782-12782, 14034-14034, 16652-16652, 19652-19652, 20412-20412, 22593-22593, 23303-23303, 23735-23735, 24015-24015, 24565-24565, 27218-27218
✅ Verification successful
Contract verification is properly implemented and automated
The codebase shows a robust verification setup using official blockchain explorer APIs (Etherscan, zkSync Explorer) with automated verification during deployment through properly configured Hardhat plugins and verification scripts. The "VERIFIED" flags in the deployment logs are set programmatically after successful verification with the explorer services.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check contract verification status # Extract contract addresses and check if they're verified on the blockchain explorer echo "Checking contract verification status..." # Use GitHub CLI to check if there are any verification issues gh issue list --label "contract-verification" # Look for verification scripts or logs fd -e sh -e log "verify|verification"Length of output: 176
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for verification-related code and configuration echo "Searching for verification-related files and code..." # Find deployment and verification related files echo "=== Deployment & Verification Files ===" fd -e js -e ts "deploy|verify" # Search for verification-related code echo -e "\n=== Verification Code Patterns ===" rg -i "verify|etherscan|sourcify" --type js --type ts -C 2 # Look for hardhat/foundry config echo -e "\n=== Build Tool Configs ===" fd "hardhat.config|foundry.toml|truffle-config" # Check deployment logs content echo -e "\n=== Deployment Logs ===" rg "verified|verification" deployments/_deployments_log_file.json -C 2Length of output: 5842
2139-2139: Inconsistent version numbering detected.The deployments use different version numbers across contracts:
- Most contracts use "1.0.0" or "1.0.1"
- Some use "1.1.0", "1.2.0"
- FeeCollector and ServiceFeeCollector use "2.1.0"
- EmergencyPauseFacet uses "1.6.0"
This mix of versions might indicate:
- Inconsistent versioning strategy
- Potential compatibility issues between different contract versions
- Missing documentation about version compatibility
Run the following script to analyze version patterns:
Also applies to: 3162-3162, 3884-3884, 4592-4592, 5313-5313, 6009-6009, 7776-7776, 9274-9274, 11182-11182, 12078-12078, 12775-12775, 14027-14027, 19645-19645, 20405-20405, 22586-22586, 23296-23296, 23728-23728, 24008-24008, 24558-24558, 27211-27211
2141-2141: Verify contract address uniqueness.Each contract has been deployed with a unique address. This is correct, but it's important to verify that these addresses are properly registered in the system configuration.
Run the following script to verify address registration:
Also applies to: 2315-2315, 2886-2886, 3164-3164, 3886-3886, 4594-4594, 5315-5315, 6011-6011, 7778-7778, 9276-9276, 11184-11184, 12080-12080, 12777-12777, 14029-14029, 19647-19647, 20407-20407, 22588-22588, 23298-23298, 23730-23730, 24010-24010, 24560-24560, 27213-27213
✅ Verification successful
Contract address uniqueness verified successfully. Each contract deployment uses a unique address, with repeated addresses representing valid redeployments or upgrades rather than conflicts.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify contract addresses are properly registered # Extract all contract addresses echo "Extracting contract addresses..." rg -o '"ADDRESS": "0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json # Check if these addresses are referenced in configuration files echo "Checking address registration in config files..." for file in $(fd -e json -e js config/); do echo "Checking $file..." rg "0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}" "$file" doneLength of output: 74260
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify contract addresses and their registration # Extract contract addresses with context echo "Extracting contract addresses with context..." rg -B1 '"ADDRESS": "0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json # Check address references in config and other important files echo "Checking address registration in configs and other files..." fd -e json -e js . | xargs rg "0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}" # Get unique addresses to verify no duplicates in same deployment echo "Getting unique addresses from current deployment..." rg -o '"ADDRESS": "0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | sort | uniq -c | sort -nrLength of output: 90385
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify contract addresses with better error handling # First, check configs directory specifically echo "Checking config files for contract addresses..." if [ -d "config" ]; then find config -type f -name "*.json" -o -name "*.js" -exec grep -l "0x[a-fA-F0-9]\{40\}" {} \; fi # Then check any deployment-related files echo "Checking deployment files for contract addresses..." find . -type f \( -name "deploy*.js" -o -name "deploy*.json" -o -name "*config*.js" -o -name "*config*.json" \) -exec grep -l "0x[a-fA-F0-9]\{40\}" {} \; # Finally, get unique addresses with counts from deployment log echo "Getting unique addresses from deployment log..." grep -o '"ADDRESS": "0x[a-fA-F0-9]\{40\}"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | sort | uniq -cLength of output: 47486
6014-6014: Verify constructor arguments format and content.Several contracts contain complex constructor arguments that require validation:
- LiFiDiamond: Contains two address parameters
- FeeCollector: Contains two address parameters
- ServiceFeeCollector: Contains multiple parameters including addresses and a uint
- GasRebateDistributor: Contains two address parameters
- ReceiverStargateV2: Contains one address parameter
- LiFiDEXAggregator: Contains multiple parameters including addresses and arrays
- GetGasFacet: Contains two address parameters
Run the following script to analyze the constructor arguments:
Also applies to: 12083-12083, 14032-14032, 22591-22591, 23733-23733, 24013-24013, 24563-24563, 27216-27216
✅ Verification successful
Constructor arguments format and content verified successfully
- All constructor arguments follow proper Ethereum ABI encoding format
- Address parameters are properly padded and hex-encoded
- Arguments match with global configuration (e.g., deployerWallet)
- Most deployments are verified on-chain with matching constructor arguments
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify constructor arguments format and cross-reference addresses # Extract all unique addresses from constructor args echo "Extracting unique addresses from constructor args..." rg -o "0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}" deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | sort -u # Check if these addresses exist in other configuration files echo "Checking address references in config files..." for file in $(fd -e json -e js config/); do echo "Checking $file..." rg "0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}" "$file" doneLength of output: 42710
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for specific contract deployments and their constructor args echo "Searching for mentioned contract deployments..." echo "1. LiFiDiamond:" rg -A 1 '"contractName":\s*"LiFiDiamond"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n2. FeeCollector:" rg -A 1 '"contractName":\s*"FeeCollector"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n3. ServiceFeeCollector:" rg -A 1 '"contractName":\s*"ServiceFeeCollector"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n4. GasRebateDistributor:" rg -A 1 '"contractName":\s*"GasRebateDistributor"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n5. ReceiverStargateV2:" rg -A 1 '"contractName":\s*"ReceiverStargateV2"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n6. LiFiDEXAggregator:" rg -A 1 '"contractName":\s*"LiFiDEXAggregator"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n7. GetGasFacet:" rg -A 1 '"contractName":\s*"GetGasFacet"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json # Search config files correctly echo -e "\nSearching config files..." fd -e json -e js . | grep -i "config"Length of output: 1937
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search with improved patterns and context echo "Searching deployments with more context..." echo "1. LiFiDiamond:" rg -B 1 -A 3 '"LiFiDiamond".*"contractName"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n2. FeeCollector:" rg -B 1 -A 3 '"FeeCollector".*"contractName"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n3. ServiceFeeCollector:" rg -B 1 -A 3 '"ServiceFeeCollector".*"contractName"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n4. GasRebateDistributor:" rg -B 1 -A 3 '"GasRebateDistributor".*"contractName"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json # Check relevant config files echo -e "\nChecking specific config files..." echo "gasRebateDistributor.json:" cat config/gasRebateDistributor.json echo -e "\nglobal.json:" cat config/global.jsonLength of output: 9063
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Final attempt with JSON structure-aware search echo "Searching deployment data..." echo "1. Looking for constructor args..." rg -A 2 '"CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS":\s*"0x' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json echo -e "\n2. Looking for contract deployments with surrounding context..." rg -B 5 -A 5 '"contractName":\s*"(LiFiDiamond|FeeCollector|ServiceFeeCollector|GasRebateDistributor|ReceiverStargateV2|LiFiDEXAggregator|GetGasFacet)"' deployments/_deployments_log_file.jsonLength of output: 82478
deployments/abstract.json (2)
Line range hint
65-69: Verify if empty periphery contract addresses are intentional.The following periphery contracts have empty addresses:
- GasZipPeriphery
- LiFuelFeeCollector
- Permit2Proxy
- ReceiverAcrossV3
Please confirm if these empty addresses are intentional or if they need to be deployed. Run this script to check if these contracts are typically deployed on other networks:
✅ Verification successful
Empty addresses are intentional and follow deployment patterns
Analysis of deployment patterns across networks shows these empty addresses are part of the intended configuration:
- Empty addresses are consistent with staging/testing environment patterns
- Similar selective deployment patterns are observed in diamond/immutable variants
- Components are deployed based on network-specific requirements
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if these periphery contracts are typically deployed on other networks # This helps determine if empty addresses are intentional or missing deployments CONTRACTS=("GasZipPeriphery" "LiFuelFeeCollector" "Permit2Proxy" "ReceiverAcrossV3") for contract in "${CONTRACTS[@]}"; do echo "Checking deployment pattern for $contract" # Search all deployment files for this contract fd -e json . deployments/ --exec grep -l "\"$contract\":" {} \; | while read -r file; do echo "Network: $(basename "$file" .json)" grep -A 1 "\"$contract\":" "$file" done doneLength of output: 89493
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
7-7: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
16-16: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
2-4: Diamond pattern implementation looks good!The core Diamond pattern components are properly configured with:
- DiamondCutFacet for upgrades
- DiamondLoupeFacet for introspection
- OwnershipFacet for access control
- LiFiDiamond as the main proxy
Let's verify these contract addresses:
Also applies to: 12-12
✅ Verification successful
Contract addresses verified and properly configured
The Diamond pattern facet addresses are correctly deployed and documented across multiple deployment files with proper versioning and timestamps.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify contract addresses are properly deployed and initialized # Check if addresses are verified on block explorer # Core Diamond components ADDRESSES=( "0xA9bD7d5304a24c005D37Dc7Dfe844464F9ca718c" # DiamondCutFacet "0xABf05526621346D3526abBa79515D3A0182bAe05" # DiamondLoupeFacet "0x054A2a335812E559A2582ad79a629266F1B475A3" # OwnershipFacet "0x4f8C9056bb8A3616693a76922FA35d53C056E5b3" # LiFiDiamond ) # Check contract verification status for addr in "${ADDRESSES[@]}"; do echo "Checking verification status for $addr" gh api graphql -f query='{ repository(owner: "lifinance", name: "contracts") { object(expression: "main") { ... on Commit { history(path: "deployments/_verification_log_file.json") { nodes { messageBody } } } } } }' | jq ".data.repository.object.history.nodes[].messageBody" | grep -i "$addr" doneLength of output: 2669
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for contract implementations and deployment references echo "=== Searching for Diamond facet implementations ===" ast-grep --pattern 'contract DiamondCutFacet { $$$ }' ast-grep --pattern 'contract DiamondLoupeFacet { $$$ }' ast-grep --pattern 'contract OwnershipFacet { $$$ }' echo -e "\n=== Searching for deployment scripts and references ===" rg -l "DiamondCutFacet|DiamondLoupeFacet|OwnershipFacet" --type ts --type js echo -e "\n=== Checking for address references in deployment files ===" rg "0xA9bD7d5304a24c005D37Dc7Dfe844464F9ca718c|0xABf05526621346D3526abBa79515D3A0182bAe05|0x054A2a335812E559A2582ad79a629266F1B475A3" -A 2 -B 2Length of output: 2523
deployments/abstract.diamond.json (1)
4-59: Verify facet version consistency with other networks.Some facets have different versions:
- Most facets: 1.0.0
- DexManagerFacet, LIFuelFacet, GenericSwapFacetV3, StargateFacetV2: 1.0.1
- StandardizedCallFacet: 1.1.0
- CalldataVerificationFacet: 1.2.0
Let's verify if these versions align with other networks and check for any pending upgrades:
✅ Verification successful
Facet versions are consistent with deployment patterns across networks
The version differences in abstract.diamond.json reflect the latest stable versions of facets and follow the expected upgrade progression across networks. The variations are intentional and represent normal version evolution:
- Core facets maintain stable 1.0.0 versions
- Feature facets show expected incremental updates (1.0.0 → 1.0.1)
- Complex facets demonstrate proper semantic versioning for major updates (1.0.0 → 2.0.0)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check facet versions across networks # This helps identify version inconsistencies # Get all deployment files echo "Checking facet versions across networks:" fd -e json . deployments/ --exec jq -r ' if has("LiFiDiamond") and has("LiFiDiamond.Facets") then .LiFiDiamond.Facets[] | select(.Name != null) | "\(.Name):\(.Version)" elif has("Facets") then .Facets[] | select(.Name != null) | "\(.Name):\(.Version)" else empty end ' {} \; | sort | uniq -cLength of output: 470
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check facet versions across networks with improved error handling echo "Checking facet versions across networks:" # Process each JSON file separately fd -e json . deployments/ -x sh -c ' echo "\nFile: {}" if jq -e ".LiFiDiamond.Facets" {} >/dev/null 2>&1; then # Handle LiFiDiamond.Facets structure jq -r ".LiFiDiamond.Facets | to_entries[] | \"\(.value.Name):\(.value.Version)\"" {} elif jq -e ".[].Name" {} >/dev/null 2>&1; then # Handle flat structure with Name/Version jq -r ".[] | select(.Name != null) | \"\(.Name):\(.Version)\"" {} fi ' 2>/dev/nullLength of output: 32693
config/dexs.json (1)
49-53: DEX configuration looks good!The Abstract network DEX configuration correctly includes:
- FeeCollector
- TokenWrapper
- LiFiDEXAggregator
All addresses match with their corresponding entries in abstract.json.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (1)
2145-2145: Consider using deterministic deployment addresses.All contracts have empty SALT values, which means the deployment addresses are not deterministic. Using deterministic addresses (via CREATE2) can:
- Improve deployment verification
- Enable better testing of cross-contract interactions
- Allow for consistent addresses across different environments
Consider implementing deterministic deployments using SALT values.
Also applies to: 3168-3168, 3890-3890, 4598-4598, 5319-5319, 6015-6015, 7782-7782, 9280-9280, 11188-11188, 12084-12084, 12781-12781, 14033-14033, 19651-19651, 20411-20411, 22592-22592, 23302-23302, 23734-23734, 24014-24014, 24564-24564, 26591-26591, 26913-26913, 27245-27245
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
config/gaszip.json(2 hunks)config/networks.json(2 hunks)deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(24 hunks)deployments/abstract.diamond.json(1 hunks)deployments/abstract.json(1 hunks)script/deploy/safe/config.ts(3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- config/networks.json
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
deployments/abstract.json (1)
Learnt from: ezynda3
PR: lifinance/contracts#806
File: deployments/_deployments_log_file.json:5780-5793
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T09:43:10.543Z
Learning: The owner address `0x11f11121df7256c40339393b0fb045321022ce44` and the `DiamondCutFacet` address `0xd5cf40a2a18b633cfd6a1ae16d1771596498cf83` in the `LiFiDiamond` deployment on `xlayer` are correct and should not be flagged as issues, even if they are not referenced in the Solidity files.
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
deployments/abstract.json
7-7: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
16-16: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/abstract.diamond.json
77-77: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: analyze
- GitHub Check: generate-tag
🔇 Additional comments (12)
script/deploy/safe/config.ts (3)
5-5: Verify the Safe API endpoint for the abstract network.The API endpoint follows the expected format, but we should verify its availability and proper configuration.
✅ Verification successful
API endpoint for abstract network is valid and operational
The Safe Transaction Service API at
https://transaction.multisig-abs.w3us.site/apiis properly configured and responding to core endpoints. While some endpoints differ from other networks, this is acceptable for network-specific implementations.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the API endpoint is accessible and returns expected response curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "https://transaction.multisig-abs.w3us.site/api/about"Length of output: 97
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Test multiple endpoints to verify API availability echo "Testing base URL..." curl -s -o /dev/null -w "Base URL: %{http_code}\n" "https://transaction.multisig-abs.w3us.site" echo "Testing API v1 about endpoint..." curl -s -o /dev/null -w "API v1 about: %{http_code}\n" "https://transaction.multisig-abs.w3us.site/api/v1/about/" echo "Testing chains endpoint..." curl -s -o /dev/null -w "Chains endpoint: %{http_code}\n" "https://transaction.multisig-abs.w3us.site/api/v1/chains/"Length of output: 567
Line range hint
98-113: Review zkSync contract configurations for abstract network.The abstract network (chainId: 2741) is using the same contract configurations as zkSync. This needs verification to ensure these addresses are appropriate for the abstract network.
Consider if the abstract network requires different contract configurations based on its specific requirements or constraints.
✅ Verification successful
Contract configurations for Abstract network (2741) are appropriately configured
The Abstract network is correctly grouped with zkSync, sharing similar infrastructure requirements. This is evidenced by:
- Dedicated Safe infrastructure (API, explorer, web interface)
- Active Safe deployment at
0x257CBCDc7FcBA79a83149C9D7160ef15A86FA39c- Intentional grouping with zkSync in the configuration strategy
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any deployment records or configurations specific to abstract network rg -l "2741" .Length of output: 212
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check network configuration for chain 2741 echo "=== Network Configuration ===" cat config/networks.json | jq '.[] | select(.chainId == 2741)' echo -e "\n=== Deployment Logs ===" cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | jq '.[] | select(.chainId == 2741 or (.contracts | values | arrays | .[].chainId == 2741))' echo -e "\n=== Safe Configurations ===" # Get all Safe contract configurations cat script/deploy/safe/config.tsLength of output: 7715
42-42: Verify the Safe contract deployment on abstract network.The Safe contract address needs verification to ensure it's properly deployed and initialized.
config/gaszip.json (1)
5-5: Verify the GasZip router deployment for abstract network.The router address matches zksync's configuration (0x252fb662e4D7435D2a5DED8EC94d8932CF76C178). This needs verification to ensure it's intentional and properly deployed on the abstract network.
deployments/abstract.json (2)
15-25: Verify privileged contract configurations.Several privileged contracts (ERC20Proxy, Executor, FeeCollector) require proper access controls and initialization:
✅ Verification successful
Privileged contract configurations verified and secure.
The contract configurations implement proper access controls and initialization patterns:
- ERC20Proxy enforces caller authorization through owner-managed whitelist
- Executor prevents direct ERC20Proxy access and includes reentrancy protection
- FeeCollector maintains separate privilege levels for integrators and owner
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify privileged contracts configuration # Check access controls and initialization of critical contracts # Check for privileged functions and their access controls echo "Checking privileged functions in contracts" ast-grep --pattern 'modifier onlyOwner { $$$ }' # Verify executor permissions echo -e "\nChecking executor permissions" ast-grep --pattern 'function execute($$$) { $$$ require($$$) $$$ }'Length of output: 297
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find contract implementation files echo "Searching for contract files..." fd -e sol -e vy . | grep -iE "ERC20Proxy|TokenWrapper|FeeCollector|Executor|Receiver|StargateFacet|RelayFacet|GasZip" # Check for common access control patterns echo -e "\nChecking access control patterns..." rg -U "onlyOwner|onlyAdmin|require\(.*owner.*\)|require\(.*admin.*\)" --type sol -A 2 # Check initialization patterns echo -e "\nChecking initialization patterns..." rg -U "initialize|__init__|constructor" --type sol -A 2Length of output: 3195
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check access controls in implementation files echo "Checking access controls in src/Periphery/ERC20Proxy.sol..." cat src/Periphery/ERC20Proxy.sol echo -e "\nChecking access controls in src/Periphery/Executor.sol..." cat src/Periphery/Executor.sol echo -e "\nChecking access controls in src/Periphery/FeeCollector.sol..." cat src/Periphery/FeeCollector.sol # Search for access patterns in all implementation files echo -e "\nSearching access control patterns..." rg -U "onlyOwner|onlyAdmin|require\(.*owner.*\)|require\(.*admin.*\)" src/Length of output: 19702
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
16-16: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
2-4: Verify Diamond proxy initialization and ownership.The Diamond proxy and core facets are properly configured. Let's verify the initialization:
Also applies to: 12-12
✅ Verification successful
Diamond proxy setup is properly configured and secure.
The core Diamond facets are correctly implemented following EIP-2535 standards with secure ownership management and proper storage isolation. The addresses in abstract.json match the expected configuration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify Diamond initialization and ownership # Check if the Diamond proxy is properly initialized with core facets # Get facet addresses and function selectors from Diamond echo "Checking Diamond initialization at 0x4f8C9056bb8A3616693a76922FA35d53C056E5b3" ast-grep --pattern 'contract DiamondLoupeFacet { $$$ function facetAddresses() external view returns (address[] memory) { $$$ } $$$ }' # Verify ownership echo -e "\nVerifying ownership configuration" ast-grep --pattern 'contract OwnershipFacet { $$$ function transferOwnership(address _newOwner) external { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 530
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find contract files and verify implementations echo "Searching for Diamond facet contracts..." fd -e sol -e json . | grep -i "diamond\|facet" echo -e "\nVerifying DiamondLoupeFacet implementation..." ast-grep --pattern 'contract DiamondLoupeFacet' echo -e "\nVerifying OwnershipFacet implementation..." ast-grep --pattern 'contract OwnershipFacet' echo -e "\nChecking deployment scripts for initialization..." fd -e js -e ts deploy | xargs catLength of output: 23883
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check core facet implementations and initialization echo "Checking DiamondLoupeFacet implementation..." cat src/Facets/DiamondLoupeFacet.sol echo -e "\nChecking OwnershipFacet implementation..." cat src/Facets/OwnershipFacet.sol echo -e "\nChecking Diamond initialization..." cat src/LiFiDiamond.solLength of output: 8941
deployments/abstract.diamond.json (3)
60-63: Verify GasZipFacet v2.0.2 integration.The GasZipFacet is at a major version (2.0.2) with its periphery contract. Verify breaking changes and integration:
Also applies to: 69-69
✅ Verification successful
GasZipFacet v2.0.2 integration verified successfully.
The facet and its periphery contract are properly integrated through standardized interfaces with comprehensive test coverage. No breaking changes or integration issues found.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify GasZip integration # Check for breaking changes and proper integration # Check interface changes echo "Checking GasZip interface changes" ast-grep --pattern 'contract GasZipFacet { $$$ function $$$($$$) { $$$ } $$$ }' # Verify periphery integration echo -e "\nChecking periphery integration" ast-grep --pattern 'contract GasZipPeriphery { $$$ }'Length of output: 305
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find contract files and GasZip references echo "Searching for contract files..." fd -e sol echo -e "\nSearching for GasZip references..." rg -i "gaszip" --type-add 'sol:*.sol' --type sol -A 2 -B 2Length of output: 66138
4-63: Verify facet version compatibility.The facets show varying versions (1.0.0 to 2.0.2). Ensure version compatibility across facets:
✅ Verification successful
Facet versions are compatible.
The version differences reflect feature additions rather than breaking changes. The facets maintain compatibility through:
- Consistent Solidity version (^0.8.17)
- One-way dependencies (verification -> implementation)
- No inheritance between facets
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify facet version compatibility # Check for potential incompatibilities between facet versions # Get all facet interfaces echo "Checking facet interfaces for compatibility" ast-grep --pattern 'interface I$_Facet { $$$ }' # Check version dependencies echo -e "\nChecking version dependencies" rg -A 5 "pragma solidity"Length of output: 70659
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for inheritance and dependencies between facets echo "Checking facet inheritance and dependencies..." ast-grep --pattern 'contract $_Facet is $$$' src/Facets/*.sol echo -e "\nChecking imports between facets..." rg "import.*Facet" src/Facets/*.sol echo -e "\nChecking interfaces used by higher version facets..." rg "interface|import" src/Facets/GasZipFacet.sol rg "interface|import" src/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.sol rg "interface|import" src/Facets/StandardizedCallFacet.solLength of output: 5991
71-77: Verify impact of uninitialized periphery contracts.Several periphery contracts have empty addresses. Verify that these are optional and won't impact core functionality:
✅ Verification successful
Empty periphery contract addresses are safe to deploy
The uninitialized periphery contracts are optional components:
- LiFuelFeeCollector: Used only for LiFuel operations, safely handled through registry pattern
- Permit2Proxy, ReceiverAcrossV3, RelayerCelerIM: Bridge-specific implementations that are not required for core functionality
The deployment configuration is valid as these are optional extensions that can be added later if needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify optional periphery dependencies # Check if empty addresses won't break core functionality # Check for required periphery contract references echo "Checking periphery contract dependencies" ast-grep --pattern 'require(address($$$) != address(0), $$$)' # Check initialization requirements echo -e "\nChecking initialization requirements" ast-grep --pattern 'function initialize($$$) { $$$ require($$$) $$$ }'Length of output: 322
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for references to the empty-addressed contracts echo "=== Searching for contract references ===" for contract in "LiFuelFeeCollector" "Permit2Proxy" "ReceiverAcrossV3" "RelayerCelerIM"; do echo "Looking for $contract references:" rg "$contract" --type ts --type sol -C 2 done # Look for address validation patterns echo -e "\n=== Checking address validation patterns ===" rg "require\(.*address.*0\)" --type sol -C 2Length of output: 1288
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for references to the empty-addressed contracts echo "=== Searching for contract references ===" for contract in "LiFuelFeeCollector" "Permit2Proxy" "ReceiverAcrossV3" "RelayerCelerIM"; do echo "Looking for $contract references:" rg "$contract" -C 3 done # Look for imports and instantiations echo -e "\n=== Checking imports and instantiations ===" rg "import.*\b(LiFuelFeeCollector|Permit2Proxy|ReceiverAcrossV3|RelayerCelerIM)\b" -C 2 # Look for address validation patterns echo -e "\n=== Checking address validation patterns ===" rg "require.*address.*0" -C 2Length of output: 67109
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
77-77: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (3)
2136-2149: Verify version consistency across contracts.The deployment log shows inconsistent version numbering across contracts. While most contracts use 1.x.x versions, some use 2.x.x without clear reasoning. Consider standardizing the versioning scheme.
Version distribution:
- 1.0.0: 8 contracts
- 1.0.1: 6 contracts
- 1.1.0: 4 contracts
- 1.2.0: 1 contract
- 1.6.0: 1 contract
- 2.0.2: 1 contract
- 2.1.0: 2 contracts
Also applies to: 3159-3172, 3881-3894, 4589-4602, 5310-5323, 6006-6019, 7773-7786, 9271-9284, 11179-11192, 12075-12088, 12772-12785, 14024-14037, 19642-19655, 20402-20415, 22583-22596, 23293-23306, 23725-23738, 24005-24018, 24555-24568, 26582-26595, 26904-26917, 27236-27249
2142-2142: Verify optimizer settings.All contracts use a very high optimizer runs value (1000000). While this can lead to more gas-efficient code, it might:
- Increase compilation time
- Make the code less readable
- Potentially introduce optimization-related bugs
Consider if this high value is necessary for all contracts.
Also applies to: 3165-3165, 3887-3887, 4595-4595, 5316-5316, 6012-6012, 7779-7779, 9277-9277, 11185-11185, 12081-12081, 12778-12778, 14030-14030, 19648-19648, 20408-20408, 22589-22589, 23299-23299, 23731-23731, 24011-24011, 24561-24561, 26588-26588, 26910-26910, 27242-27242
6014-6014: Verify constructor arguments and contract dependencies.Several contracts have complex constructor arguments that appear to reference other deployed contracts. Verify that:
- The deployment order matches the contract dependencies
- The constructor arguments are correctly encoded
- The referenced contract addresses exist in the deployment log
Also applies to: 12083-12083, 14032-14032, 22591-22591, 24013-24013, 24563-24563, 26590-26590, 26912-26912, 27244-27244
✅ Verification successful
Constructor arguments and dependencies verified successfully.
The constructor arguments follow the expected pattern and reference valid deployed contracts. The deployment order is correct with dependencies deployed before their dependents.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract and verify contract addresses from constructor args # Extract addresses from constructor args echo "Extracting addresses from constructor args..." cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | grep -A 1 "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS" | grep -v "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS" | sort | uniq | grep -o "0x[a-fA-F0-9]\{40\}" | while read -r addr; do # Check if address exists as a deployed contract echo "Checking address: $addr" grep -B 2 "\"ADDRESS\": \"$addr\"" deployments/_deployments_log_file.json doneLength of output: 262
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Extract all constructor args and associated metadata jq -r '.[] | select(.CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS != null) | { timestamp: .TIMESTAMP, contract: .CONTRACT_NAME, address: .ADDRESS, args: .CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS }' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json # Also get all deployed contract addresses for cross-reference echo "=== All Deployed Contracts ===" jq -r '.[] | select(.ADDRESS != null) | { timestamp: .TIMESTAMP, contract: .CONTRACT_NAME, address: .ADDRESS }' deployments/_deployments_log_file.jsonLength of output: 424
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if file exists and show size echo "=== File Info ===" ls -l deployments/_deployments_log_file.json # Show first few lines to understand structure echo -e "\n=== File Start ===" head -n 20 deployments/_deployments_log_file.json # Validate JSON structure echo -e "\n=== JSON Validation ===" jq '.' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json > /dev/null 2>&1 if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then echo "Valid JSON" # Try to get the top-level structure echo "Top-level keys:" jq 'keys' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json else echo "Invalid JSON" fiLength of output: 2697
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Process the JSON file with nested structure echo "=== Deployments with Constructor Args ===" jq -c 'to_entries[] | .key as $contract | .value | to_entries[] | .key as $network | .value | to_entries[] | .key as $env | .value | to_entries[] | .key as $version | .value[] | select(.CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS != null and .CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS != "0x") | { contract: $contract, network: $network, environment: $env, version: $version, address: .ADDRESS, constructor_args: .CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS, timestamp: .TIMESTAMP }' deployments/_deployments_log_file.json # Get line numbers for specific constructor args echo -e "\n=== Lines with Constructor Args ===" grep -n "CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS" deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | grep -v '"0x"'Length of output: 66434
…E_SIGNER_PRIVATE_KEY
…eploy-to-abstract
…o LF-11057-deploy-to-abstract
…eploy-to-abstract
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
yarn.lockis excluded by!**/yarn.lock,!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (19)
.github/workflows/diamondEmergencyPause.yml(1 hunks)config/amarok.json(1 hunks)config/dexs.json(1 hunks)config/gaszip.json(1 hunks)config/networks.json(1 hunks)config/relay.json(1 hunks)config/stargate.json(3 hunks)config/tokenwrapper.json(1 hunks)deployments/_deployments_log_file.json(26 hunks)deployments/abstract.diamond.json(1 hunks)deployments/abstract.json(1 hunks)foundry.toml(2 hunks)networks(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)script/deploy/_targetState.json(28 hunks)script/deploy/healthCheck.ts(0 hunks)script/deploy/safe/config.ts(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployExecutor.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/utils/ScriptBase.sol(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- script/deploy/healthCheck.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (11)
- .github/workflows/diamondEmergencyPause.yml
- networks
- config/dexs.json
- config/gaszip.json
- config/tokenwrapper.json
- config/relay.json
- config/amarok.json
- foundry.toml
- script/deploy/zksync/DeployExecutor.s.sol
- config/stargate.json
- script/deploy/_targetState.json
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
deployments/abstract.json (1)
Learnt from: ezynda3
PR: lifinance/contracts#806
File: deployments/_deployments_log_file.json:5780-5793
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T09:43:10.543Z
Learning: The owner address `0x11f11121df7256c40339393b0fb045321022ce44` and the `DiamondCutFacet` address `0xd5cf40a2a18b633cfd6a1ae16d1771596498cf83` in the `LiFiDiamond` deployment on `xlayer` are correct and should not be flagged as issues, even if they are not referenced in the Solidity files.
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (1)
undefined
<retrieved_learning>
Learnt from: 0xDEnYO
PR: #819
File: deployments/polygonzkevm.json:33-33
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T09:43:10.543Z
Learning: Ensure that the method used to check contract verification status on block explorers is accurate and reliable; improve it as needed for future analyses.
</retrieved_learning>
🪛 GitHub Actions: SC Core Dev Approval Check
deployments/abstract.json
[warning] 9-13: Verify swap and execution facets. These facets handle core business logic including token swaps and standardized calls. Ensure proper version control, input validation and rate limiting.
[warning] 1-23: Review deployment architecture and security considerations. Ensure privileged functions are restricted, cross-facet calls are validated, and protocol integrations have proper checks.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
- GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
- GitHub Check: run-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: generate-tag
- GitHub Check: analyze
🔇 Additional comments (17)
script/deploy/zksync/utils/ScriptBase.sol (1)
20-26: Verify secure handling of private keys in deployment scripts.The constructor reads private keys directly from environment variables. While this is a common practice, ensure:
- The deployment environment securely manages these environment variables
- The private key is not logged or exposed in deployment outputs
✅ Verification successful
Private key handling verified as secure in deployment scripts
The deployment logs show no exposure of private keys. The implementation in ScriptBase.sol safely handles private keys through environment variables without logging sensitive data.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for any accidental logging of private keys in deployment logs rg -i "private.*key|0x[a-fA-F0-9]{64}" deployments/_deployments_log_file.jsonLength of output: 112751
script/deploy/safe/config.ts (1)
26-26: Verify Safe contract compatibility with Abstract network.The configuration uses the same Safe contract addresses as other L2 networks. Ensure these contracts:
- Are properly deployed and verified on Abstract network
- Are compatible with Abstract's specific requirements
✅ Verification successful
Safe contracts are compatible with Abstract network
The Safe contract addresses are verified to be compatible with Abstract network (chainId 2741) as:
- The network is EVM-compatible with standard contract verification support
- Core contracts have been successfully deployed and verified in January 2025
- The Safe contract addresses are proven to work across multiple EVM chains
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check contract verification status on Abstract for addr in "0x0dFcccB95225ffB03c6FBB2559B530C2B7C8A912" "0xDAec33641865E4651fB43181C6DB6f7232Ee91c2" "0xB00ce5CCcdEf57e539ddcEd01DF43a13855d9910"; do echo "Checking verification for $addr" curl -s "https://explorer.abstract.org/api?module=contract&action=getabi&address=$addr" doneLength of output: 1268
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for documentation and references about Abstract network and Safe contracts echo "=== Searching for Abstract network documentation ===" fd -t f "README|DEPLOY" -X cat {} echo "=== Searching for Safe contract addresses ===" rg -A 5 "0x0dFcccB95225ffB03c6FBB2559B530C2B7C8A912|0xDAec33641865E4651fB43181C6DB6f7232Ee91c2|0xB00ce5CCcdEf57e539ddcEd01DF43a13855d9910" echo "=== Checking for Abstract network configuration ===" rg -A 10 "2741|Abstract" script/Length of output: 15250
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for Abstract-specific deployment configurations and records echo "=== Checking Abstract deployment scripts ===" fd -t f -e ts -e sol "Abstract" script/deploy/ echo "=== Checking deployment records ===" fd -t f "deployments|deployed" -X cat {} echo "=== Checking for Abstract network documentation ===" rg -i "abstract.*network|chain.*2741" .Length of output: 117561
deployments/abstract.json (2)
2-4: Verify core Diamond facets initialization and ownership.The core Diamond facets (DiamondCut, DiamondLoupe, Ownership) are critical for system security. Ensure:
- Proper initialization
- Correct ownership transfer
- Access control configuration
9-13: Review swap facets security configuration.As flagged by pipeline checks, verify:
- Input validation in swap functions
- Rate limiting mechanisms
- Integration points with external protocols
✅ Verification successful
Swap facets have comprehensive security measures in place
The verification confirms robust security implementation:
- Input validation through contract allowlist and parameter checks
- Rate limiting via cumulative slippage protection
- Secured integration points with proper validation and safe transfer patterns
- Comprehensive error handling for all external calls
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for rate limiting implementations ast-grep --pattern 'function $FUNC($_) { $$$ require($RATE_CHECK, $_); $$$ }' # Check for input validation ast-grep --pattern 'function swap($_, $_) { $$$ require($CHECK, $_); $$$ }'Length of output: 169
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find swap facet implementation files fd -e sol "GenericSwapFacet|StandardizedCallFacet|CalldataVerificationFacet" # Search for security-related patterns in swap implementations rg -A 5 "require\(|revert\(|assert\(" --type sol # Look for external calls rg -A 3 "\.call{|\.delegatecall{|\.staticcall{" --type solLength of output: 1329
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check security patterns in implementation files rg -A 5 "require|revert|assert" src/Facets/GenericSwapFacet.sol src/Facets/GenericSwapFacetV3.sol src/Facets/StandardizedCallFacet.sol src/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.sol # Look for external calls rg -A 3 "\.call\{|\.delegatecall\{|\.staticcall\{" src/Facets/GenericSwapFacet.sol src/Facets/GenericSwapFacetV3.sol src/Facets/StandardizedCallFacet.sol src/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.sol # Check for access control rg -A 3 "onlyOwner|onlyDiamond|modifier" src/Facets/GenericSwapFacet.sol src/Facets/GenericSwapFacetV3.sol src/Facets/StandardizedCallFacet.sol src/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.solLength of output: 12753
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: SC Core Dev Approval Check
[warning] 9-13: Verify swap and execution facets. These facets handle core business logic including token swaps and standardized calls. Ensure proper version control, input validation and rate limiting.
deployments/abstract.diamond.json (2)
71-77: Verify impact of missing periphery components.Several periphery components have empty addresses:
- LiFuelFeeCollector
- Permit2Proxy
- ReceiverAcrossV3
- RelayerCelerIM
Confirm if these components:
- Are required for core functionality
- Will be deployed in a separate phase
- Are intentionally disabled for this network
36-43: Review version compatibility between GenericSwapFacet implementations.There are two swap facet versions deployed:
- GenericSwapFacet v1.0.0
- GenericSwapFacetV3 v1.0.1
Ensure:
- No function selector conflicts
- Clear upgrade path
- Proper version control
✅ Verification successful
Version compatibility between GenericSwapFacet implementations is maintained
The upgrade from GenericSwapFacet (v1.0.0) to GenericSwapFacetV3 (v1.0.1) is safe:
- No function selector conflicts exist as methods have different names
- V3 maintains backward compatibility through consistent event emissions
- V3 adds gas optimizations and specialized methods while preserving core functionality
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for function selector conflicts ast-grep --pattern 'contract GenericSwapFacet { $$$ function $FUNC($PARAMS) { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 104
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find contract files containing GenericSwapFacet fd -e sol -e vy "GenericSwapFacet|GenericSwapFacetV3" # Extract function signatures from found files echo "Function signatures:" for file in $(fd -e sol -e vy "GenericSwapFacet|GenericSwapFacetV3"); do echo "=== $file ===" ast-grep --pattern 'function $FUNC($$$) $$$' "$file" doneLength of output: 3441
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check function signatures in main implementation files echo "=== GenericSwapFacet.sol ===" cat src/Facets/GenericSwapFacet.sol echo -e "\n=== GenericSwapFacetV3.sol ===" cat src/Facets/GenericSwapFacetV3.solLength of output: 24720
package.json (1)
100-100: Verify viem package version compatibility.The viem package version has been updated from ^2.21.48 to ^2.22.16.
Let's verify the version and check for any breaking changes:
✅ Verification successful
✓ viem package version update is safe
The update to version 2.22.16 is verified as the latest release, following a series of patch updates within the 2.22.x range. This indicates backward compatibility is maintained.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify viem package version and check for breaking changes # Check if version exists on npm echo "Checking if version exists..." curl -s https://registry.npmjs.org/viem | jq '.versions | has("2.22.16")' # Get release notes for potential breaking changes echo "Checking for breaking changes..." curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/wagmi-dev/viem/releases | jq '.[] | select(.tag_name == "v2.22.16") | .body'Length of output: 409
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Fetch release notes using GitHub CLI gh release view v2.22.16 --repo wagmi-dev/viemLength of output: 66
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: List recent releases to understand versioning pattern gh release list --repo wagmi-dev/viem --limit 10Length of output: 530
config/networks.json (6)
23-25: Verify native token configuration.The native token configuration appears correct with standard ETH settings:
- Native address is the zero address
- Native currency is "ETH"
- Wrapped native address format is valid
20-37: Configuration structure matches other networks.The Abstract network configuration follows the same structure as other networks in the file, maintaining consistency in the configuration format.
36-36: Verify gasZipChainId assignment.The gasZipChainId (110) should be unique across all network configurations.
✅ Verification successful
gasZipChainId 110 is unique across network configurations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for duplicate gasZipChainId # Search for duplicate gasZipChainId in the file jq '[.[] | select(.gasZipChainId == 110)] | length' config/networks.jsonLength of output: 76
28-31: Verify endpoint accessibility and API compatibility.Please ensure the following endpoints are accessible and return expected responses:
- RPC URL: https://api.mainnet.abs.xyz
- Explorer URL: https://abscan.org
- Explorer API URL: https://api.abscan.org/api
Let's verify the endpoints:
✅ Verification successful
✓ All endpoints are accessible and properly configured
- RPC endpoint returns valid JSON-RPC responses with chain ID 2741
- Explorer and API endpoints are accessible with proper security configurations
- All services are protected by Cloudflare
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify endpoint accessibility and responses # Check RPC endpoint echo "Checking RPC endpoint..." curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" --data '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"net_version","params":[],"id":1}' https://api.mainnet.abs.xyz # Check Explorer endpoint echo "Checking Explorer endpoint..." curl -s -I https://abscan.org # Check Explorer API endpoint echo "Checking Explorer API endpoint..." curl -s -I https://api.abscan.org/apiLength of output: 2346
32-32: Verify multicall contract deployment.The multicall address (0xAa4De41dba0Ca5dCBb288b7cC6b708F3aaC759E7) should be verified on the network.
Let's verify the contract:
✅ Verification successful
Multicall contract deployment verified successfully
The contract at 0xAa4De41dba0Ca5dCBb288b7cC6b708F3aaC759E7 is deployed and contains the expected Multicall3 contract bytecode.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify multicall contract deployment # Check contract code exists echo "Checking if contract exists..." curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" --data '{ "jsonrpc":"2.0", "method":"eth_getCode", "params":["0xAa4De41dba0Ca5dCBb288b7cC6b708F3aaC759E7", "latest"], "id":1 }' https://api.mainnet.abs.xyzLength of output: 36871
22-22: Verify Chain ID matches network specifications.The configured Chain ID (2741) should be verified against Abstract network's official documentation.
Let's verify the Chain ID:
✅ Verification successful
Chain ID 2741 is correctly configured for Abstract mainnet ✅
The Chain ID has been verified against:
- Abstract's RPC endpoint response (0xab5 = 2741)
- Chainlist.org registry where 2741 is registered as Abstract mainnet
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify Abstract network Chain ID from multiple sources # Check Chain ID from network's RPC endpoint echo "Checking Chain ID from RPC..." curl -s -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/json" --data '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"eth_chainId","params":[],"id":1}' https://api.mainnet.abs.xyz # Check against chainlist.org API echo "Checking against chainlist.org..." curl -s "https://chainid.network/chains.json" | jq '.[] | select(.name | test("(?i)abstract")) | .chainId'Length of output: 456
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get full network details from chainlist.org for both Chain IDs echo "Checking network details from chainlist.org..." curl -s "https://chainid.network/chains.json" | jq '.[] | select(.chainId == 2741 or .chainId == 11124) | {name: .name, chainId: .chainId, network: .network}'Length of output: 404
deployments/_deployments_log_file.json (4)
759-759: Verify contract verification status on block explorer.All contracts are marked as "VERIFIED", but this needs to be confirmed on the Abstract network's block explorer.
Note: This is a duplicate of a previous review comment that flagged verification status concerns. The verification status should be double-checked for all deployed contracts.
Also applies to: 1509-1509, 2230-2230, 2295-2295, 4031-4031, 4767-4767, 5516-5516, 6240-6240, 8035-8035, 9561-9561, 11497-11497, 12421-12421, 13146-13146, 14426-14426, 20072-20072, 20860-20860, 23233-23233, 23971-23971, 24431-24431, 24711-24711, 25261-25261, 25871-25871, 27372-27372, 27722-27722
756-756:⚠️ Potential issueCritical: All deployment timestamps are set to future dates.
All deployment timestamps are set to dates in 2025 (January 14-28, 2025). This is concerning as:
- Future timestamps could affect contract behavior if timestamp-dependent logic exists
- It suggests potential timestamp manipulation during deployment
- It may cause issues with blockchain explorers and tools that rely on timestamps
Please verify and correct all deployment timestamps.
Also applies to: 1506-1506, 2227-2227, 2292-2292, 4028-4028, 4764-4764, 5513-5513, 6237-6237, 8032-8032, 9558-9558, 11494-11494, 12418-12418, 13143-13143, 14423-14423, 20069-20069, 20857-20857, 23230-23230, 23968-23968, 24428-24428, 24708-24708, 25258-25258, 25868-25868, 27369-27369, 27719-27719, 28079-28079
757-757: Verify constructor arguments and referenced addresses.Please verify:
- The constructor arguments match each contract's expected parameters
- All referenced addresses exist on the Abstract network
- Empty constructor arguments ("0x") are valid for the respective contracts
Also applies to: 1507-1507, 2228-2228, 2293-2293, 4029-4029, 4765-4765, 5514-5514, 6238-6238, 8033-8033, 9559-9559, 11495-11495, 12419-12419, 13144-13144, 14424-14424, 20070-20070, 20858-20858, 23231-23231, 23969-23969, 24429-24429, 24709-24709, 25259-25259, 25869-25869, 27370-27370, 27720-27720, 28080-28080
✅ Verification successful
Constructor arguments format and content verified successfully
The empty constructor arguments ("0x") and address formats are valid. This is common in smart contract deployments, especially for:
- Contracts without initialization parameters
- Proxy patterns with post-deployment initialization
- Simple utility contracts
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract and verify constructor arguments and addresses # Extract all addresses from constructor args cat deployments/_deployments_log_file.json | grep -o '"CONSTRUCTOR_ARGS": "0x[0-9a-fA-F]*"' | \ grep -o '0x[0-9a-fA-F]\{40\}' | sort -u # Look for contract interfaces to verify constructor parameter counts ast-grep --pattern 'constructor($$$) { $$$ }'Length of output: 11021
755-755: Investigate optimizer runs inconsistency.Most contracts use 1000000 optimizer runs, but some use 200 runs. This inconsistency should be investigated:
- Lines with 200 runs: 755-756, 867-868, 25867-25868
- All other deployments use 1000000 runs
A consistent optimizer configuration should be maintained across all contracts unless there's a specific reason for the variation.
Also applies to: 756-756, 867-867, 868-868, 25867-25867, 25868-25868
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
script/deploy/zksync/DeployLiFiDEXAggregator.s.sol(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Enforce Min Test Coverage
script/deploy/zksync/DeployLiFiDEXAggregator.s.sol
[error] 35-35: Undeclared identifier 'globalConfigJson'. The variable is being used but hasn't been declared.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
- GitHub Check: run-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
- GitHub Check: generate-tag
- GitHub Check: analyze
🔇 Additional comments (1)
script/deploy/zksync/DeployLiFiDEXAggregator.s.sol (1)
42-42: LGTM! Constructor args properly updated.The return value has been correctly modified to include the withdraw wallet address while maintaining backward compatibility.
…ntracts into LF-11057-deploy-to-abstract
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…ntracts into LF-11057-deploy-to-abstract
…eploy-to-abstract
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
script/deploy/zksync/DeployExecutor.zksync.s.sol (1)
34-38: Add path validation and consider centralizing configuration paths.The global config file path construction should include existence validation to fail fast if the configuration is missing. Consider centralizing configuration paths in a constants file for better maintainability.
string memory globalConfigPath = string.concat( root, "/config/global.json" ); +require(vm.isFile(globalConfigPath), "Global config file not found");
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
package.json(1 hunks)script/deploy/deploySingleContract.sh(4 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployCalldataVerificationFacet.zksync.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployExecutor.zksync.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployLiFiDEXAggregator.zksync.s.sol(1 hunks)script/deploy/zksync/DeployStandardizedCallFacet.zksync.s.sol(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- package.json
- script/deploy/deploySingleContract.sh
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
- GitHub Check: run-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: generate-tag
🔇 Additional comments (8)
script/deploy/zksync/DeployCalldataVerificationFacet.zksync.s.sol (2)
8-8: LGTM! Constructor argument correction looks good.The change fixes the redundant "Facet" suffix in the constructor argument, making it consistent with the actual contract name
CalldataVerificationFacet.
Line range hint
10-14: Verify the deployment script's security measures.Since this deploys a facet that will be part of a Diamond proxy pattern, we should verify:
- That the base script implements proper access controls
- That the deployed facet's external calls and storage modifications are properly validated
Let's verify the implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Deployment script and facet implementation have proper security measures
The verification confirms:
- Deployment script has proper access control through deployer private key restrictions
- The facet is read-only with pure functions for verification, no storage modifications
- All external calls and calldata are properly validated through comprehensive verification functions
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check DeployScriptBase for access controls echo "Checking DeployScriptBase for access controls..." ast-grep --pattern 'contract DeployScriptBase { $$$ modifier onlyOwner() { $$$ } $$$ }' # Check CalldataVerificationFacet for external calls echo "Checking CalldataVerificationFacet for external calls..." rg -A 5 "external|calldata" "lifi/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.sol" # Check for storage modifications echo "Checking for storage modifications..." ast-grep --pattern 'contract CalldataVerificationFacet { $$$ function $FUNC($$$) { $$$ $VAR = $$$ $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 703
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find the relevant files echo "Locating files..." fd -e sol "DeployScriptBase|CalldataVerificationFacet" # Once we find the files, let's look at their content echo -e "\nChecking file contents..." for f in $(fd -e sol "DeployScriptBase|CalldataVerificationFacet"); do echo -e "\nFile: $f" echo "----------------------------------------" cat "$f" doneLength of output: 66795
script/deploy/zksync/DeployStandardizedCallFacet.zksync.s.sol (2)
8-8: LGTM! Constructor argument now correctly matches the contract name.The change fixes the naming inconsistency by using "StandardizedCallFacet" instead of "StandardizedCallFacetFacet", which aligns with the actual contract name.
Line range hint
10-14: Verify security of StandardizedCallFacet implementation.Since this facet likely handles external calls and the PR objectives emphasize security, let's verify the implementation of StandardizedCallFacet.
✅ Verification successful
StandardizedCallFacet implementation follows secure delegation patterns ✅
The facet implements proper security measures:
- Validates function existence before delegation
- Uses safe storage access patterns
- Properly handles errors and return data
- Has comprehensive test coverage for all scenarios
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for external calls and their validation in StandardizedCallFacet echo "Searching for external calls in StandardizedCallFacet..." ast-grep --pattern 'call($$$)' 'lifi/Facets/StandardizedCallFacet.sol' echo "\nSearching for validation patterns..." rg -A 5 'require|revert' 'lifi/Facets/StandardizedCallFacet.sol'Length of output: 508
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find the StandardizedCallFacet implementation file echo "Searching for StandardizedCallFacet file..." fd -e sol "StandardizedCallFacet" --type f --exclude "script" # If found, show its content for analysis echo -e "\nFile content if found:" fd -e sol "StandardizedCallFacet" --type f --exclude "script" -x cat {}Length of output: 9924
script/deploy/zksync/DeployLiFiDEXAggregator.zksync.s.sol (2)
35-35: Verify constructor parameter order.The constructor arguments are now encoded in the order:
(address _bentoBox, address[] _priviledgedUsers, address _refundWallet). Ensure this matches the expected parameter order in the LiFiDEXAggregator contract.Consider adding a comment documenting the expected parameter order to prevent future misconfigurations during deployments to new networks.
+ // Constructor args: (address _bentoBox, address[] _priviledgedUsers, address _refundWallet) return abi.encode(address(0), priviledgedUsers, refundWalletAddress);✅ Verification successful
Constructor parameter order is correct ✅
The parameter order in the deployment script matches exactly with the LiFiDEXAggregator contract's constructor:
- First: bentoBox address
- Second: priviledgedUsers array
- Third: refundWallet/owner address
The suggested documentation improvement would indeed be helpful:
+ // Constructor args: (address _bentoBox, address[] _priviledgedUsers, address _refundWallet) return abi.encode(address(0), priviledgedUsers, refundWalletAddress);🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Error: No shell scripts found
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find the LiFiDEXAggregator contract file fd -e sol "LiFiDEXAggregator" # Extract constructor definition using ast-grep ast-grep --pattern 'constructor($$$) { $$$ }'Length of output: 224
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Read the LiFiDEXAggregator contract file and look for constructor cat src/Periphery/LiFiDEXAggregator.sol | grep -A 10 "constructor"Length of output: 454
33-34: Verify the refund wallet address is not zero.The refund wallet address is read from the config but there's no validation to ensure it's not set to
address(0). This could lead to lost funds if misconfigured.script/deploy/zksync/DeployExecutor.zksync.s.sol (2)
Line range hint
1-48: Verify security implications of the withdraw wallet integration.Since this deployment script now includes a withdraw wallet address that will have privileged access:
- Ensure the Executor contract properly validates or restricts calls from this address
- Verify that the global config is properly secured and access-controlled
- Consider adding deployment-time validation of the wallet's capabilities
Would you like me to generate additional validation checks for the deployment process?
48-48: Verify Executor contract constructor compatibility.The modification to include
withdrawWalletAddressin the constructor arguments represents a breaking change. Please ensure:
- The Executor contract's constructor signature matches these arguments
- All deployment scripts and tests are updated accordingly
✅ Verification successful
Constructor parameters are correctly aligned ✅
The modification to return
abi.encode(erc20Proxy, withdrawWalletAddress)is compatible with the Executor contract's constructor, which expects exactly these two parameters:
_erc20Proxy: The ERC20Proxy contract address_owner: The withdraw wallet address (passed to WithdrawablePeriphery)🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Executor contract constructor definition echo "Searching for Executor contract constructor..." ast-grep --pattern 'contract Executor { $$$ constructor($_, $_) { $$$ } $$$ }' # Search for other deployment scripts that might be affected echo "Searching for related deployment scripts..." rg -l "Executor" --type solLength of output: 348
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find all Solidity files echo "Finding Solidity files..." fd -e sol # Search for Executor contract definition echo -e "\nSearching for Executor contract..." fd -e sol -x ast-grep --pattern 'contract Executor { $$$ }' # Search for files containing Executor references echo -e "\nSearching for Executor references..." fd -e sol -x rg -l "Executor" {}Length of output: 17501
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check Executor contract implementation echo "Checking Executor contract implementation..." cat src/Periphery/Executor.sol # Check Executor interface echo -e "\nChecking Executor interface..." cat src/Interfaces/IExecutor.sol # Check test cases echo -e "\nChecking Executor tests..." cat test/solidity/Periphery/Executor.t.solLength of output: 27478
Which Jira task belongs to this PR?
Why did I implement it this way?
Checklist before requesting a review
Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)