Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add a new bridge #2143

Closed
gordsport opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2204
Closed

Add a new bridge #2143

gordsport opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2204
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@gordsport
Copy link
Contributor

gordsport commented Jan 29, 2024

Spec:

Update the ethereum_bridge_spec to describe:

  • a change to the multisig contract code to include a chain-id in the signature
  • add a new function to the assetpool? so that Axelar can work with it

Assumption is that the existing contract will remain on Ethereum and the new contract (in the same repo) will be deployed to Arbitrum.

Questions:

Are there any changes we need to make to the asset pool contract (and associated ACs)

ACs:

  • Add new AC codes for some of the existing system tests for deposit/withdrawal, but mention pointing at the L2 chain instead
  • AC's for key-rotations
  • Any others?

Other tasks:

@wwestgarth
Copy link
Contributor

Just dumping a thought for two ACs that I think would be important (I can't find a spec change for this):
Deposit to the asset pool (either bridge). Read the EthereumEvent tx from tendermint and:

  1. set the chainID to an empty string, re-sign and resubmit as a validator - check that it doesn't count as a deposit on either bridge
  2. set the chainID to the other bridge, re-sign and resubmit as a validator - check it fails to get validated

The system-tests already has the framework to re-sign/re-submit ethereum-event txs, so they should be ok to test.

@gordsport gordsport linked a pull request Mar 8, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants