Add builder codes PR #538
Add builder codes PR #538
Conversation
🟡 Heimdall Review Status
|
| (address user, bytes32 code, uint16 feeBps) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| - `user` → The user address on Base (NOT the Twin contract address) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we could be more explicit here. user is really just the intended recipient address on Base.
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| <Note> | ||
| **Why `to = BRIDGE_CAMPAIGN_ADDRESS`?** Because the tokens must arrive at the Bridge campaign first; `Flywheel.send(...)` attributes the action before the campaign forwards/finalizes as designed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The key point is: when using a builder code, the token transfer must send the tokens to BRIDGE_CAMPAIGN_ADDRESS. That contract will then forward the tokens to the intended user (recipient).
| data: abi.encodeWithSelector(Counter.increment.selector) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| **With builder code** (prepend Flywheel + keep Counter call): Wrap both calls in a `Multicall` executed by `DelegateCall` from the Twin contract context. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could revisit this once we’ve deployed CBMulticall on Base mainnet and Sepolia. For now, let’s link this contract from our current implementation, and later we can add the deployment addresses.
Maybe we could add a small description on why CBMulticall is recommended here instead of the canonical Multicall (because we want to support doing delegate calls with values).
Co-authored-by: xenoliss <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: xenoliss <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: xenoliss <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: xenoliss <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: xenoliss <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: xenoliss <[email protected]>
3 participants
What changed? Why?
Adding Builder Codes section to the docs