L2 bridge: safer callhook interface#719
Conversation
Codecov ReportBase: 91.51% // Head: 91.53% // Increases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## pcv/l2-bridge #719 +/- ##
=================================================
+ Coverage 91.51% 91.53% +0.01%
=================================================
Files 41 42 +1
Lines 1980 1984 +4
Branches 346 346
=================================================
+ Hits 1812 1816 +4
Misses 168 168
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
tmigone
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice!
It might be overkill but how about adding another mock contract that doesn't implement the callhook interface and then adding a test to verify the callhook execution fails?
Co-authored-by: Tomás Migone <tomas@edgeandnode.com>
|
Good idea on the additional test @tmigone - we can use any contract so I just used RewardsManager rather than adding a new mock |
onTokenTransferfunction, to limit the potential impact of a compromised whitelisted L1 sender