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

test(e2e-evm): Add message call tests #2034

Draft
wants to merge 19 commits into
base: dl-e2e-abi-tests-refactor
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

drklee3
Copy link
Member

@drklee3 drklee3 commented Oct 16, 2024

Description

  • Add functionCallCode to low level caller contract
    • Document details of the inline assembly
  • Test behavior of different call types to verify both functionCallCode is correct and context behavior
    • Verify expected msg.sender, msg.value, and storage location
  • Add callcode use for ABI basic tests to call mock contracts.

Initial set of tests that just verify the use of callcode. This is a
prerequisite set of tests that ensure our Caller contract uses callcode
as expected, as the ABI compliance tests do not validate this behavior.
Build the whole tx params in the test cases themselves to be more
explicit and more flexible.
Validate behavior of callcode when storage is used, primarily where the
storage is set.
This ensures value was transferred in the tests, which paired with the
msg.value checks, shows that msg.value is not preserved in callcode.
Expecting 0 value would make the conditional fail with a falsey value.
Adding additional else case to ensure the return value is undefined as
an extra check in case the assertions are not being run.

This correctly validates msg.value does indeed have the value passed to
callcode(), just not the same one as msg.value of the parent caller.
@@ -170,16 +170,29 @@ describe("ABI_BasicTests", function () {
{
name: "can be called by low level contract call",
txParams: (ctx) => ({
to: caller.address,
to: lowLevelCaller.address,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Execellent rename 👍. I was a bit lazy with the initial one -- lowLevelCaller gives better clarity on what this test is doing

//
let publicClient: PublicClient;
let walletClient: WalletClient;
let lowLevelCaller: GetContractReturnType<ArtifactsMap["Caller"]["abi"]>;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great typing

// callCodeTestCaseStorage is for setStorageValue() call tests to validate
// which contract the storage is set on and the expected storage value
type callCodeTestCaseStorage = callCodeTestCaseBase & {
wantSender?: never;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🥇 nice explicit check here

wantStorageValue: bigint;
};

type callCodeTestCase = callCodeTestCaseSendAndValue | callCodeTestCaseStorage;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is quite a nice method for adding multiple kinds of tests in the same suite, thanks for teaching me this ✍️

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The want* prefix is surprising nice to read

functionName: "functionCall",
args: [ctx.address, funcSelector],
}),
gas: contractCallerGas,
}),
expectedStatus: "success",
},
{
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🔥

txData.account = whaleAddress;

if (!txData.to) {
expect.fail("to field not set");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice type assertions to guard against errors in the test cases

// Storage tests if applicable
if (tc.wantStorageContract) {
const storageContract = tc.wantStorageContract(ctx);
const storageValue = await publicClient.getStorageAt({
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good use of the storage API when the calling contract doesn't have a function to retrieve the value via call

@@ -18,12 +18,67 @@ contract Caller {

// solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly
assembly {
// Bubble up errors: revert(pointer, length of revert reason)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for adding comments where I should have left them 🥇

function functionCallCode(address to, bytes calldata data) external payable {
// solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly
assembly {
// Copy the calldata to memory, as callcode uses memory pointers.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💯 and good note on memory safety for future reference if modifying this function

This restructures the tests to confirm the expected msg.value and
msg.sender with various different message call types, e.g. call,
delegatecall, callcode, staticcall.

The storage tests are also split up so that they are independent set of
tests to keep different types of tests separate and reduce clutter with
the slight increase in redundancy in the test logic.
With the previous changes of functionCallCode calling the
functionCallCodeWithValue cause an increase in gas usage since calling
an function marked as external consume more gas in addition to the
overhead of calling anothher function.

This function was added to allow more control over the value the caller
contract sends with the message call to the implementation contract.
It now contains general message context and storage for different call
types
This also resolves the no-unused-expressions lint errors
Prerequisite changes to allow for testing the same set of tests against
the precompile versions of the contracts. This follows the similar
pattern as the ABI tests where the test context can be initialized by
dynamic values for the implementation contract.
This implements shared ABI interfaces for both the mock contracts and
later on, precompiles, that are used for the tests.

The main goal is to test precompiles handle different message call types
correctly, msg.sender, msg.value, storage location.

This expands the current set of tests that simply define the behavior of
call message types to a set of tests that can also enforce the same
behavior on a set of precompiles.
STATICCALL is expected to revert for storage tests, so having a
expected storage owner is misleading. This makes it optional so we can
show in the test cases that there is no expected storage.
@drklee3 drklee3 changed the title test(e2e-evm): Add CallCode tests for ABI compliance test(e2e-evm): Add message call tests Oct 28, 2024
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.

2 participants