feat(protocol): implement releaseEther & releaseERC20

[dantaik]

When a message failed, a user can now:

• call returnEther on the source Bridge to get his Ether back (depositAmount + callAmount)
• call returnERC20 on TokenVault to get his ERC20 token back

@shadab-taiko @cyberhorsey Merging this PR will likely make the Bridge relayer no long work due to the change of events. Please let me know if we should postpone this PR and only merge it after the alpha-2 testnet.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #13008 (1710088) into main (45153d9) will decrease coverage by 0.81%.
The diff coverage is 19.23%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #13008      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   65.89%   65.08%   -0.81%     
==========================================
  Files         112      113       +1     
  Lines        3064     3105      +41     
  Branches      368      386      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits         2019     2021       +2     
- Misses        969     1008      +39     
  Partials       76       76              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
bridge-ui	92.61% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 6a650b1
protocol	57.01% <19.23%> (-1.34%)	⬇️
relayer	69.10% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 6a650b1
ui	100.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 6a650b1

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/protocol/contracts/bridge/Bridge.sol	46.66% <0.00%> (-5.19%)	⬇️
...s/protocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeData.sol	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...protocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeInvoke.sol	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...rotocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeProcess.sol	17.64% <0.00%> (ø)
...rotocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeRelease.sol	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...contracts/test/bridge/libs/TestLibBridgeInvoke.sol	100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/protocol/contracts/bridge/TokenVault.sol	50.57% <22.72%> (-10.30%)	⬇️
packages/protocol/contracts/bridge/EtherVault.sol	76.19% <28.57%> (-23.81%)	⬇️
.../protocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeRetry.sol	94.44% <100.00%> (ø)
...protocol/contracts/bridge/libs/LibBridgeStatus.sol	60.00% <100.00%> (ø)

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[RogerLamTd]

Is LibBridgeRefund perhaps a better name if we're using it for refunding failed transactions?

[cyberhorsey]

@dantaik it is OK to merge thsi in before alpha-2 testnet because we wont deploy this onto the current public testnet, so any protocol changes do not effect relayer. I have made an issue for met o catch up the relayer with the protocol and bridge changes.

[dionysuzx]

@dantaik can you explain why this check is needed? from my understanding, the memory is initialized, and the uint256 fields callValue is initialized as 0. And between the initialization and this require statement, there is no modification to callValue.

[dantaik]

That's true, I added this check to prevent future PRs to change the value of callValue without realizing it must be 0.

[dionysuzx]

ok ill add a comment for that.

[dionysuzx]

@dantaik it is OK to merge this in before alpha-2 testnet because we wont deploy this onto the current public testnet, so any protocol changes do not effect relayer. I have made an issue for met o catch up the relayer with the protocol and bridge changes.

i think we also need an issue to update the bridge-ui to generate the proof from the signal service contract instead of the bridge, right @shadab-taiko ?

[shadab-taiko]

@dantaik it is OK to merge this in before alpha-2 testnet because we wont deploy this onto the current public testnet, so any protocol changes do not effect relayer. I have made an issue for met o catch up the relayer with the protocol and bridge changes.

i think we also need an issue to update the bridge-ui to generate the proof from the signal service contract instead of the bridge, right @shadab-taiko ?

Not sure if it has already been covered in https://github.com/taikoxyz/taiko-mono/pull/13059/files @cyberhorsey ?
Any how we are already tracking this in #12960

[cyberhorsey]

I think @d1onys1us is actually correct I will need to change where the eth_getProof call lands on both relayer and bridge ui, but I will do it after alpha testnet 2 is live so I can make sure it works as right now I would just be guessing.