coveralls
commented
2 months ago Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10010745656
Details
- 20 of 20 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
- No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
- Overall coverage increased (+0.5%) to 93.478%
| Totals | |
|---|---|
| Change from base Build 9780230154: | 0.5% |
| Covered Lines: | 386 |
| Relevant Lines: | 398 |
nlordell
Fixes: #787
Summary
This PR adds a general migration contract that takes address of the Safe, SafeL2 and fallback handler contracts during deployment. The contract allows Safe to update the Singleton at
address(0).As of now tests cover below migration paths:
See
SafeMigration.spec.tsto see how tests are organised. Do share if you any thoughts to better run same tests on different migration paths.The migration contract stores address of the Safe singletons and fallback handler rather than using code hash and requiring the user to provide singleton address as described in the issue. The reason being as follows:
Checking codehash of the target singleton means user has to provide the address of the target singleton. Also, checking code hash has higher gas costs.
The only argument for using code hash for upgrades is that it also allows unofficial singletons to be used for migration using official migration contract. But, users/projects can also deploy their own version of migration contract by providing singleton addresses in the constructor and have similar security guarantees as the official migration contract.
Changes in PR
Unlike
Safe150Migration.sol, this new contract does not check if slot(0) of the contract stores an address having some non-empty code. I think this check is not need because this contract is not intended to be used in general by other proxy contracts and checking slot(0) value is only a partially correct way. Would like to know thought of others.