Seaport v1.5 #1015
Merged
Seaport v1.5 #1015
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
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1015 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 46 46
Lines 2650 2652 +2
Branches 396 396
=========================================
+ Hits 2650 2652 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
More error cases
fuzz on criteria items less frequently for performance
approval + insufficient native token failures
…-values-to-space add bulk sig height and index to space
Fix typos in comments
partial fill inscription fuzz testing
…orders-available No specified orders available
contract generate failures
Generate order skips
use lightly-modified reference code for FractionUtil
…pass add some comments to OrderValidator for partial fills
…checks check generateOrder + ratifyOrder calldata
d1ll0n
approved these changes
Apr 26, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes a minor bug, introduced in Seaport v1.3, that causes the
amountparameter on spent offer item amounts reported to zones and contract offerers to be overwritten by therecipientaddress on spent offer items with excess (or unspent) item amounts when usingmatchorfulfillAvailablemethods.As part of these combined fulfillment methods, Seaport iterates over each supplied order and asserts that all consideration item amounts have been fully met while also checking for unspent offer item amounts. If an unspent offer item amount is located, it typecasts the offer item in-place to a received item and writes the designated recipient to memory, overwriting the
endAmountparameter on the offer item, and uses that received item to perform a transfer, sending the excess offer item amounts to the designated recipient.Once all transfers have been fully processed, Seaport then iterates over each supplied order another time and performs a call to
validateOrderon the zone (for restricted orders) orratifyOrderon the offerer (for contract orders), encoding the call based on the order data in memory. Specifically, theendAmountparameter is used to encode the amount for each item (the full amount is originally written to bothstartAmountandendAmount, butstartAmountis used to debit offer items and credit consideration items during fulfillment). As offer items with excess item amounts have had this value overwritten with therecipientvalue, Seaport erroneously reports theamounton these offer items to the zone or contract offerer as being equal to the recipient address.The fix proposed in this PR reads the
endAmountvalue and places the result on the stack prior to overwriting it with therecipientvalue, then restores the originalendAmountvalue immediately after performing the associated transfer.Aside from this patch, the only change to the contracts in this PR is to bump the version to 1.5.