Route transactions through avatar Safe in simulation #78
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
So far we simulated transaction using the avatar Safe as sender (transaction
fromfield). This caused issues in cases where called contracts used something likemsg.sender.transfer(value). (Reason is that a transfer invokes the recipient contract\sfallback/receivehook with a gas stipend of 2300, which is insufficient for a cold safe proxy.)From now on we simulate through the avatar Safe's
execTransactionThroughModuleorexecTransaction(for direct exec without mod) function. For the latter case we need to adjust the signature threshold in the simulation fork.Another unrelated changed introduces in the PR is that we switched from Blockscout to Gnosisscan as the block explorer for Gnosis.