feat: remote omni-chain call context: sender and chainID

[brewmaster012]

Description

NOTE to a3 network:
Will require a redeployment of SystemContract and a MsgUpdateSystemContractAddress from policy group admin,
post upgrade (supposed in V8.0.0)

1. This PR uses the latest SystemContract from zeta-chain/protocol-contracts@bbfea49
   which adds the context struct to the parameters of depositAndCall() function in SystemContract.

This is breaking for dApps that rely on omnichain smart contract--the interface has changed.

2. This PR introduces new admin type Msg to update system contract address to a new address.
   The Msg handler updates all references to systemcontract address in ZRC20 contracts tracked
   by ForeignCoins, and also migrate state from old systemcontract to new systemcontract.

Added three smoketest:

1. Revised all zevm swap app to use the new interface
2. Added a dummy omnichain smart contract that emits the context to verify the context is correct.
3. tested the Upgrade SystemContract address at block 20.

Misc fixes:

1. fixed smoketest bitcoin tx occasional signing fail
2. fixed some CI scripts

Closes: #832
Closes: #918
Closes: #919

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Include instructions and any relevant details so others can reproduce.

• Tested CCTX in localnet
• Tested in development environment
• Go unit tests
• Go integration tests
• Tested via GitHub Actions

Checklist:

• I have added unit tests that prove my fix feature works

[brewmaster012]

@fadeev This PR will require a doc update.

[brewmaster012]

@lumtis thank you for the comments; addressed most of them. Request re-review

[lumtis]

@lumtis thank you for the comments; addressed most of them. Request re-review

Great, I will do a second iteration of the PR tomorrow, need to take more time looking at the smoke tests

[lumtis]

@brewmaster012 it seems there might be some comments you haven't seen, any opinion on these suggestions?

[fadeev]

@brewmaster012 can you provide more info on the origin and the sender values? As far as I can tell sender is the address that sends tokens to a TSS address, what is the origin then?

[brewmaster012]

@brewmaster012 can you provide more info on the origin and the sender values? As far as I can tell sender is the address that sends tokens to a TSS address, what is the origin then?

Right now, origin is the EOA address, sender is empty because we are only processing txs that sent to TSS directly from EOA, not from some contract.

[brewmaster012]

@brewmaster012 it seems there might be some comments you haven't seen, any opinion on these suggestions?

yeah missed them. Now all should be addressed.

[lumtis]

@brewmaster012 it seems there might be some comments you haven't seen, any opinion on these suggestions?

yeah missed them. Now all should be addressed.

Thanks. It seems merging 0.46.13 created many errors in the CI

[lumtis]

It looks legit to me, just another comment.

[brewmaster012]

Yeah let's think about a small number of more generic types. For this PR im going to create a new one with a generic name.

________________________________ From: Tanmay ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 4:51:26 PM To: zeta-chain/node ***@***.***> Cc: brewmaster012 ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [zeta-chain/node] feat: remote omni-chain call context: sender and chainID (PR #912) @kingpinXD commented on this pull request.

________________________________ In x/fungible/keeper/msg_server_update_system_contract.go<#912 (comment)>:

+ "context"

+ "math/big" + + sdk "github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types" + sdkerrors "github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/errors" + ethcommon "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common" + "github.com/zeta-chain/protocol-contracts/pkg/contracts/zevm/systemcontract.sol" + "github.com/zeta-chain/protocol-contracts/pkg/contracts/zevm/zrc20.sol" + "github.com/zeta-chain/zetacore/common" + "github.com/zeta-chain/zetacore/x/fungible/types" + zetaObserverTypes "github.com/zeta-chain/zetacore/x/observer/types" +) + +func (k Keeper) UpdateSystemContract(goCtx context.Context, msg *types.MsgUpdateSystemContract) (*types.MsgUpdateSystemContractResponse, error) { + ctx := sdk.UnwrapSDKContext(goCtx) + if msg.Creator != k.zetaobserverKeeper.GetParams(ctx).GetAdminPolicyAccount(zetaObserverTypes.Policy_Type_deploy_fungible_coin) { Yes, I think creating a new policy type might be a good idea, Or we can just rename the existing policy so that the identifier includes both the functions it's responsible for. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#912 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVEUZQ7RHREIOERYX76RUPLXUKYF5ANCNFSM6AAAAAA3EVBM6Q>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[brewmaster012]

ready for approval. @lumtis @kingpinXD