Add Safe to L2 Setup Contract

[nlordell]

This PR introduces a setup contract that can be called from the Safe setup function in order to automatically promote a Safe at setup time if the code is executing on an L2. Namely, this allows the Safe Proxy factory to use a single singleton and initializer for all chains, but end up with different singletons depending on the chain ID.

The expected use of this contract is to use the standard proxy factory:

Safe l1Singleton;
SafeL2 l2Singleton;
SafeToL2Setup l2Setup;

proxyFactory.createProxyWithNonce(
    address(l1Singleton),
    abi.encodeCall(
        l1Singleton.setup,
        (
            owners,
            threshold,
            address(l2Setup),
            abi.encodeCall(l2Setup.setupToL2, address(l2Singleton)),
            fallbackHandler,
            paymentToken,
            payment,
            paymentReceiver
        )
    ),
    saltNonce
)

On L1 (i.e. Ethereum Mainnet where chainId == 1), you would end up with a Safe where safe.singleton == l1Singleton and on any other chains, you would end up with safe.singleton == l2Singleton. This would happen before the first transaction.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9780086819

Details

• 12 of 12 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 93.017%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9710052157:	0.1%
Covered Lines:	400
Relevant Lines:	412

---

💛 - Coveralls

[davidaucoin7377]

Test run

[mmv08]

I set this to false because hardhat fails to infer the revert reason in some tests.

[mmv08]

hardhat really wanted me to update to the latest version

[nlordell]

We should document this new error code somewhere.

[Sulthanmh]

Yes

…

On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 7:36 PM Nicholas Rodrigues Lordello < ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In test/libraries/SafeToL2Setup.spec.ts <#759 (comment)> : > + ethers.ZeroAddress, + 0, + ethers.ZeroAddress, + ]); + const safeAddress = await proxyFactory.createProxyWithNonce.staticCall(safeSingleton.target, setupData, 0); + + await expect(proxyFactory.createProxyWithNonce(safeSingleton.target, setupData, 0)) + .to.emit(safeToL2SetupLib.attach(safeAddress), "ChangedSingleton") + .withArgs(safeL2SingletonAddress); + }); + + it("can be used only via DELEGATECALL opcode", async () => { + const { safeToL2SetupLib } = await setupTests(); + const randomAddress = ethers.hexlify(ethers.randomBytes(20)); + + await expect(safeToL2SetupLib.setupToL2(randomAddress)).to.be.rejectedWith("GS900"); We should document this new error code somewhere. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#759 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BJI7R6NXRKJJDZHB3YDXLH3ZKLCGLAVCNFSM6AAAAABHLCGTV2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDCNJUGIYTEMJTGI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[nlordell]

LGTM, only some small nits.

[nlordell]

🤯 - generally, well documented and not too difficult to follow.

[nlordell]

LGTM - Approved (can't approve in GH because I opened the PR).

Only open question would be, should we add this to the deployment scripts? Although this can be done in a separate PR. Also left some "take-it-or-leave-it" ubernits.