Sponsor payment #326
Sponsor payment #326
Conversation
Kolezhniuk
requested review from
demonsh,
AndriianChestnykh,
volodymyr-basiuk and
vmidyllic
| * Supports Ether and ERC-20 token payments with enhanced security feature$. | ||
| * @custom:storage-location erc7201:iden3.storage.SponsorPayment | ||
| */ | ||
| contract SponsorPayment is ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable, EIP712Upgradeable, Ownable2StepUpgradeable { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is a motivation to use nonReentrant functionality in this contract?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
to prevent nonReentrant attack
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is only protection from internal calls,no?
| /** | ||
| * @dev Payment details used in claim logic. | ||
| */ | ||
| struct ERC20SponsorPaymentInfo { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
honestly I don't like the word Sponsor in the context of prepaid verificactions. Open discussion @demonsh @Kolezhniuk @AndriianChestnykh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vmidyllic What is your suggestion?
| if (withdrawalDelay == 0) revert InvalidParameter("Invalid withdrawal delay"); | ||
| SponsorPaymentStorage storage $ = _getSponsorPaymentStorage(); | ||
| $.ownerPercentage = ownerPercentage; | ||
| $.withdrawalDelay = withdrawalDelay; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is withdrawalDelay corresponds to all 'payments' or acts as a general configuration?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't get your question yes it acts as a general configuration, so withdrawalDelay corresponds to all 'payments'
| * Supports Ether and ERC-20 token payments with enhanced security feature$. | ||
| * @custom:storage-location erc7201:iden3.storage.SponsorPayment | ||
| */ | ||
| contract SponsorPayment is ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable, EIP712Upgradeable, Ownable2StepUpgradeable { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I want to ask @AndriianChestnykh if we inherit different upgradeable contracts and they are all Initializable ( have the same storage location), will be that a problem for upgrade?
contracts/payment/SponsorPayment.sol
Outdated
| struct SponsorPaymentStorage { | ||
| mapping(address => mapping(address => uint256)) balances; // sponsor => token => balance | ||
| mapping(address => mapping(address => WithdrawalRequest)) withdrawalRequests; // sponsor => token => request | ||
| mapping(bytes32 => bool) isWithdrawn; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it is not clear what is bytes32 without any comment
| $.withdrawalDelay = withdrawalDelay; | ||
| __ReentrancyGuard_init(); | ||
| __EIP712_init("SponsorPayment", VERSION); | ||
| __Ownable_init(owner); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should not it be __Ownable2Step_init ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure, maybe @AndriianChestnykh could help here
contracts/payment/SponsorPayment.sol
Outdated
| * @param addr Address to check | ||
| */ | ||
| function _isContract(address addr) private view returns (bool) { | ||
| uint256 size; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it is the same check target.code.length > 0 (you can test)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
replaced this check
| SponsorPaymentStorage storage $ = _getSponsorPaymentStorage(); | ||
|
|
||
| if (msg.value == 0) revert InvalidDeposit("Invalid value amount"); | ||
| $.balances[_msgSender()][address(0)] += msg.value; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we deposit to 0 address for native token?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I'm store native coin deposit per specific sponsor under address(0)
Any objection or suggestions?
| function depositERC20(uint256 amount, address token) external nonReentrant validToken(token) { | ||
| SponsorPaymentStorage storage $ = _getSponsorPaymentStorage(); | ||
| if (amount == 0) revert InvalidDeposit("Invalid token amount"); | ||
| IERC20(token).safeTransferFrom(_msgSender(), address(this), amount); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is allowance in token contract is given sepatelly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can see the interaction with SC by reviewing unit tests
| emit ERC20Withdrawal(_msgSender(), token, amount); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function _claimPayment( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this method name confuses me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please suggest the name that don't make you confuse
There was a problem hiding this comment.
discussion in the separate thread. I'm against of the usage the word 'claim' to avoid missunderstanding.
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12479322610Details
💛 - Coveralls |
contracts/payment/SponsorPayment.sol
Outdated
| 0x98fc76e32452055302f77aa95cd08aa0cf22c02a3ebdaee3e1411f6c47c2ef00; | ||
|
|
||
| modifier validToken(address token) { | ||
| if (token != address(0)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so if token == address(0) - it is valid ?
based on the modifier
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe
token == address(0) || token.code.length == 0 -> then revert
Some details: