feat: add weth -> eth/weth bridge functionality #1115
Conversation
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bennett <[email protected]>
| referrer, | ||
| integratorId, | ||
| }: AcrossDepositArgs, | ||
| spokePool: SpokePool, | ||
| spokePoolVerifier: SpokePoolVerifier, | ||
| onNetworkMismatch?: NetworkMismatchHandler | ||
| ): Promise<ethers.providers.TransactionResponse> { | ||
| /* We cannot send WETH to the recipient on the destination chain with the spoke pool verifier until |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Marking this to delete in case we want to merge this PR before ETH -> WETH support
| (isDestinationChainPolygon || isReceiverContract) | ||
| ) { | ||
| return "WETH"; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm pretty sure this is OK to remove, since we now want to say that it's possible to bridge from WETH -> ETH/WETH unless the destination is a contract or Polygon, in which case we enforce sending WETH.
| ]; | ||
| } | ||
| /* | ||
| * TODO: Handle ETH -> ETH/WETH |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Marking to remove if we merge this before ETH -> WETH/ETH support.
|
I've so far checked WETH -> WETH transfers from Arbitrum -> All other chains and then Optimism -> Arbitrum. |
bmzig
changed the title
| import { getProvider } from "./providers"; | ||
| import { getDeployedAddress } from "@across-protocol/contracts"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line unfortunately increases the FE bundle size by ~30%... This is due to the @across-protocol/contracts package being non-tree shakeable which is a known issue for some time. Can we for now just hardcode the MulticallHandler addresses in https://github.com/across-protocol/frontend/pull/1115/files#diff-ca62a13994aae3c545ad2d796d272f3ee8c0ab33b83bb3d5c023dc553b55f984R29-R36?
I think we'd need to populate the addresses into the routes*.json file during the build time ideally. But we can tackle that in a separate PR
| // If a user is interacting with the front end, assume that they are an EOA and not | ||
| // a contract. Since they are an EOA, by default they will receive ETH on the destination | ||
| // (except for Polygon). Therefore, we only need to use the multicall handler when the EOA | ||
| // wants to receive WETH after an ETH or WETH deposit. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need to actually check whether the recipient is an EOA using isContractDeployedToAddress. And only if it is not a contracts, use the multicall handler?
| (isDestinationChainPolygon || isReceiverContract) | ||
| ) { | ||
| return "WETH"; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if ( |
We want to be able to support WETH/ETH -> WETH/ETH deposits. Since the contracts will always unwrap to an EOA, we need to use the multicall handler to perform the weth wraps and unwraps. This commit should inject a message into the transaction request which performs these unwraps (or weth transfers) when a deposit condition is set.