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

[WIP]Adding the Anvil Fork on the multiples tasks. #438

Draft
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: feat/sim-stacked-tasks
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Ethnical
Copy link
Contributor

@Ethnical Ethnical commented Jan 2, 2025

Trying to add the Anvil fork feature, however I am stuck when the simulation broadcast into the anvil fork.
Somehow this is only deploying the contract and create an inconsistency between the simulation and the execution onchain.
cf screenshot ->
The trace before broadcast:
image

The trace during the broadcast, only deploying the contract (Maybe I should call a function into this new contract created for now, I am stuck).
594a0d86598527e0b6a599408b12ee3fae979aed40def75127794c908ea40c50

If anyone has an idea why?
To execute the script just need to do:

 ./script/utils/sim-sequence.sh eth "021 022 base-003 ink-001"

and to kill anvil if needed because stuck.

ps aux | grep anvil | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill; ./script/utils/sim-sequence.sh eth "021 022 base-003 ink-001"

Would merge this one to close the PR #437

@Ethnical Ethnical requested review from a team as code owners January 2, 2025 22:50
@Ethnical Ethnical requested a review from mds1 January 2, 2025 22:50
@Ethnical Ethnical changed the base branch from main to feat/sim-stacked-tasks January 2, 2025 22:51
@Ethnical Ethnical changed the title Adding the Anvil Fork on the multiples tasks. [WIP]Adding the Anvil Fork on the multiples tasks. Jan 2, 2025
@Ethnical Ethnical marked this pull request as draft January 2, 2025 22:52
@Ethnical
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ethnical commented Jan 6, 2025

I have fixed the previous issues, now I am stuck in the part to generate a correct signature since the threshold need to be 1 at least with the an owner that will match the signatures.

My plan is to:

  • 1. Set the Threshold to of owner of the safe at 1.
  • 2. Use the anvil cheatcode to set an owner address with a known private keys (so through the sentinel_address and remove the rest of the signers). In this version we already set the storage of the threshold to 1.
  • 3. generate a signature of the datahash previously get from the simulation with the known privatekey and send it instead of the dummy signature.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant