Solve ToB-UNI4-3 without restricting sync #886
Conversation
|
I quite like this as a solution, nice. |
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should remove L56 in ProtocolFees.sol but I'm in favor of this generally. I looked at the reasoning in #883 and I see how it provides more flexibility to integrators
|
@wjmelements Can you please update this branch? |
Co-authored-by: Sara Reynolds <30504811+snreynolds@users.noreply.github.com>
I have pushed a revert test, e710ad1, for the locked case that works with |
|
Can you add back in this modifier and include it on your test. I think thats how we solved this problem in the past https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/pull/856/files#r1739134580 |
|
|
| @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "getReserves": "3931" | |||
| "getReserves": "3973" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Surprisingly this increase seems to be caused by noIsolate in test_sync_multiple_unlocked, even though this snapshot is from test_settle_nonNative_withoutSync_loseFunds. When I revert 82dda85 it goes back to 3931. I'm unsure why.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change also results in 3931:
function test_sync_multiple_unlocked() public /*noIsolate*/ {
manager.sync(currency1);
//assertEq(Currency.unwrap(currency1), Currency.unwrap(manager.getSyncedCurrency()));
manager.sync(currency0);
//assertEq(Currency.unwrap(currency0), Currency.unwrap(manager.getSyncedCurrency()));
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's a problem but I am curious.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that is super odd... not sure
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i have been boggled by a few gas snapshot changes sometimes 🤷♂️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
imo this actually makes sense because of the way that noIsolate works! Its adding extra to the lastCallGas thats being snapshotted. So it isn't an actual increase to the v4 core code - its a testing-caused increase.
I could explain it more if you want to know more, but I'm not concerned nor surprised 🫡
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My surprise is because the affected snapshot happens in another test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like to understand if you have the time to explain
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My surprise is because the affected snapshot happens in another test.
OH I did not see that 😆 ok now i no longer understand it 💀
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that it has to do with noIsolate though
Solves #883 and
ToB-UNI4-3Reviewers @hensha256 @snreynolds
As described in #885 there are advantages to allowing sync to be called outside of the unlock callback.
The main reason this ability was removed was to fool-proof
collectProtocolFeesso that it cannot be called betweensyncandsettle.This PR presents an alternative to #885 that still solves ToB-UNI4-3, not by modifying
sync, but by modifyingcollectProtocolFees.Assuming
syncis called more often thancollectProtocolFees, this fix forToB-UNI4-3is superior to #856 even without considering situations like ERC-4337.Changes
Restore
syncusability outside of the unlock callback.Check in
collectProtocolFeeswhether the token to be transferred out is currently the synced token, handling the native Currency case.