Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)" - #29

Open
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom
cgt
Open

Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"#29
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom
cgt

Conversation

@blockchaindevsh

@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh commented Mar 17, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This reverts commit ef03df7, thus re-enables CGT.

Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol

@blockchaindevsh
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (ethereum-optimism#13921)"
f9852eb
This reverts commit ef03df7.
Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@qizhou

qizhou commented Mar 17, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT

@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh changed the title Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (#13921)"Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"Mar 17, 2025
@blockchaindevsh

blockchaindevsh commented Mar 17, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT

Fixed, it was generated automatically.

@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2025
Closed
@qzhodl

qzhodl commented Mar 18, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?

@blockchaindevsh

blockchaindevsh commented Mar 18, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?

There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.

@qzhodl

qzhodl commented Mar 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?

There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.

So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?

@blockchaindevsh

blockchaindevsh commented Mar 19, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?

There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.

So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?

This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.

AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.

@qzhodl

qzhodl commented Mar 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?

There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.

So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?

This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.

AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.

I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.

Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.

@blockchaindevsh

blockchaindevsh commented Mar 19, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.

Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.

When we merge with upstream, the contracts are automatically merged to the latest develop version.
So the contract changes are expected to be maintained like this:
After the develop version is tested, we cherry-pick the diffs to the corresponding contract release of upstream, to create our corresponding contract release.

The test PRs are yet to come, in order to make this PR not too big. There're 3 upstream PRs in total related with CGT as posted in our group.

@blockchaindevsh

blockchaindevsh commented Mar 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I'm now inclined to doing all reverting in this single PR since it'll be a big one anyway.

WDYT?

@qzhodl

qzhodl commented Mar 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.

@blockchaindevsh

blockchaindevsh commented Mar 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.

The other two PRs are tests for CGT, so if we want this PR to be tested before merging, we have to include them here.
Otherwise we can merge this PR as is, and apply the tests in a follow-up PR.

qzhodl
qzhodl reviewed Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
/// @notice Semantic version.
/// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.6
string public constant version = "1.0.0-beta.6";
/// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.5

@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we downgrading the version number?

@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's done automatically when reverting a commit, it should be ok since we're not using the version and it'll be recovered next time we merge with upstream.

Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
/// @notice Allows an address to lock ETH liquidity into this contract.
function burn() external payable {
if (msg.sender != Predeploys.SUPERCHAIN_WETH) revert Unauthorized();
if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();

@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that even if we reintroduce the CGT feature in the latest version, it still won’t function properly due to numerous revert conditions throughout the code? Additionally, since CGT has been removed, future updates may not consider this case, making the added feature incompatible with CGT.

@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's possible, but hopefully will be caught by the other 2 test PRs, especially the e2e test. But yeah it can happen that even the test passes, there're still cases not caught.

We are quite sure that CGT is working for Holocene, but may be left out in subsequent HF. So in the future if we want to enable new HFs, we may need to manually port CGT feature&tests to the new forks.

qzhodl
qzhodl reviewed Mar 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/SuperchainWETH.sol

/// @inheritdoc WETH98
function deposit() public payable override {
if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();

@qzhodlqzhodlMar 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between CGT and SuperchainWETH (is it related to interoperability)?
Does it imply that an L2 with CGT enabled cannot join the Superchain ecosystem?

@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 21, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think SuperchainWETH has some assumptions here:

  1. It is supposed to be always "wrapped eth" among the super chains.
  2. The native token on L2 is supposed to be ETH.

The assumptions don't hold when CGT is enabled. I remember previously @yazhenwish mentioned super chains can not have code change?

@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh mentioned this pull request Mar 21, 2025
Closed
@qzhodlqzhodl mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2025
Closed
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qzhodlqzhodlqzhodl approved these changes
@qizhouqizhouAwaiting requested review from qizhou
@pochenaipochenaiAwaiting requested review from pochenai
@ping-keping-keAwaiting requested review from ping-ke
@syntrustsyntrustAwaiting requested review from syntrust

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blockchaindevsh@qizhou@qzhodl
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)" - #29
Open
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Open
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"#29
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Conversation
@blockchaindevsh
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

This reverts commit ef03df7, thus re-enables CGT.
Conflicts:

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@blockchaindevsh
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (ethereum-optimism#13921)"
f9852eb
This reverts commit ef03df7.
Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@qizhou
qizhou
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
changed the title
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (#13921)"Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"Mar 17, 2025
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
Fixed, it was generated automatically.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 18, 2025

Closed

@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
When we merge with upstream, the contracts are automatically merged to the latest develop version.

So the contract changes are expected to be maintained like this:

After the develop version is tested, we cherry-pick the diffs to the corresponding contract release of upstream, to create our corresponding contract release.
The test PRs are yet to come, in order to make this PR not too big. There're 3 upstream PRs in total related with CGT as posted in our group.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I'm now inclined to doing all reverting in this single PR since it'll be a big one anyway.
WDYT?
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
The other two PRs are tests for CGT, so if we want this PR to be tested before merging, we have to include them here.

Otherwise we can merge this PR as is, and apply the tests in a follow-up PR.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Semantic version.
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.6
 string public constant version = "1.0.0-beta.6";
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.5
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we downgrading the version number?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's done automatically when reverting a commit, it should be ok since we're not using the version and it'll be recovered next time we merge with upstream.
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Allows an address to lock ETH liquidity into this contract.
 function burn() external payable {
 if (msg.sender != Predeploys.SUPERCHAIN_WETH) revert Unauthorized();
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that even if we reintroduce the CGT feature in the latest version, it still won’t function properly due to numerous revert conditions throughout the code? Additionally, since CGT has been removed, future updates may not consider this case, making the added feature incompatible with CGT.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's possible, but hopefully will be caught by the other 2 test PRs, especially the e2e test. But yeah it can happen that even the test passes, there're still cases not caught.
We are quite sure that CGT is working for Holocene, but may be left out in subsequent HF. So in the future if we want to enable new HFs, we may need to manually port CGT feature&tests to the new forks.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/SuperchainWETH.sol

 /// @inheritdoc WETH98
 function deposit() public payable override {
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 21, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between CGT and SuperchainWETH (is it related to interoperability)?

Does it imply that an L2 with CGT enabled cannot join the Superchain ecosystem?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 21, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think SuperchainWETH has some assumptions here:
  1. It is supposed to be always "wrapped eth" among the super chains.
  2. The native token on L2 is supposed to be ETH.
The assumptions don't hold when CGT is enabled. I remember previously @yazhenwish mentioned super chains can not have code change?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 21, 2025

Closed

@qzhodlqzhodl
mentioned this pull request
Mar 24, 2025

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qzhodlqzhodlqzhodl approved these changes
@qizhouqizhouAwaiting requested review from qizhou
@pochenaipochenaiAwaiting requested review from pochenai
@ping-keping-keAwaiting requested review from ping-ke
@syntrustsyntrustAwaiting requested review from syntrust

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blockchaindevsh@qizhou@qzhodl

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)" - #29
Open
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Open
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"#29
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Conversation
@blockchaindevsh
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

This reverts commit ef03df7, thus re-enables CGT.
Conflicts:

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@blockchaindevsh
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (ethereum-optimism#13921)"
f9852eb
This reverts commit ef03df7.
Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@qizhou
qizhou
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
changed the title
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (#13921)"Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"Mar 17, 2025
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
Fixed, it was generated automatically.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 18, 2025

Closed

@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
When we merge with upstream, the contracts are automatically merged to the latest develop version.

So the contract changes are expected to be maintained like this:

After the develop version is tested, we cherry-pick the diffs to the corresponding contract release of upstream, to create our corresponding contract release.
The test PRs are yet to come, in order to make this PR not too big. There're 3 upstream PRs in total related with CGT as posted in our group.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I'm now inclined to doing all reverting in this single PR since it'll be a big one anyway.
WDYT?
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
The other two PRs are tests for CGT, so if we want this PR to be tested before merging, we have to include them here.

Otherwise we can merge this PR as is, and apply the tests in a follow-up PR.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Semantic version.
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.6
 string public constant version = "1.0.0-beta.6";
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.5
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we downgrading the version number?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's done automatically when reverting a commit, it should be ok since we're not using the version and it'll be recovered next time we merge with upstream.
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Allows an address to lock ETH liquidity into this contract.
 function burn() external payable {
 if (msg.sender != Predeploys.SUPERCHAIN_WETH) revert Unauthorized();
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that even if we reintroduce the CGT feature in the latest version, it still won’t function properly due to numerous revert conditions throughout the code? Additionally, since CGT has been removed, future updates may not consider this case, making the added feature incompatible with CGT.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's possible, but hopefully will be caught by the other 2 test PRs, especially the e2e test. But yeah it can happen that even the test passes, there're still cases not caught.
We are quite sure that CGT is working for Holocene, but may be left out in subsequent HF. So in the future if we want to enable new HFs, we may need to manually port CGT feature&tests to the new forks.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/SuperchainWETH.sol

 /// @inheritdoc WETH98
 function deposit() public payable override {
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 21, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between CGT and SuperchainWETH (is it related to interoperability)?

Does it imply that an L2 with CGT enabled cannot join the Superchain ecosystem?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 21, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think SuperchainWETH has some assumptions here:
  1. It is supposed to be always "wrapped eth" among the super chains.
  2. The native token on L2 is supposed to be ETH.
The assumptions don't hold when CGT is enabled. I remember previously @yazhenwish mentioned super chains can not have code change?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 21, 2025

Closed

@qzhodlqzhodl
mentioned this pull request
Mar 24, 2025

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qzhodlqzhodlqzhodl approved these changes
@qizhouqizhouAwaiting requested review from qizhou
@pochenaipochenaiAwaiting requested review from pochenai
@ping-keping-keAwaiting requested review from ping-ke
@syntrustsyntrustAwaiting requested review from syntrust

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blockchaindevsh@qizhou@qzhodl

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)" - #29
Open
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Open
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"#29
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Conversation
@blockchaindevsh
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

This reverts commit ef03df7, thus re-enables CGT.
Conflicts:

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@blockchaindevsh
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (ethereum-optimism#13921)"
f9852eb
This reverts commit ef03df7.
Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@qizhou
qizhou
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
changed the title
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (#13921)"Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"Mar 17, 2025
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
Fixed, it was generated automatically.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 18, 2025

Closed

@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
When we merge with upstream, the contracts are automatically merged to the latest develop version.

So the contract changes are expected to be maintained like this:

After the develop version is tested, we cherry-pick the diffs to the corresponding contract release of upstream, to create our corresponding contract release.
The test PRs are yet to come, in order to make this PR not too big. There're 3 upstream PRs in total related with CGT as posted in our group.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I'm now inclined to doing all reverting in this single PR since it'll be a big one anyway.
WDYT?
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
The other two PRs are tests for CGT, so if we want this PR to be tested before merging, we have to include them here.

Otherwise we can merge this PR as is, and apply the tests in a follow-up PR.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Semantic version.
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.6
 string public constant version = "1.0.0-beta.6";
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.5
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we downgrading the version number?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's done automatically when reverting a commit, it should be ok since we're not using the version and it'll be recovered next time we merge with upstream.
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Allows an address to lock ETH liquidity into this contract.
 function burn() external payable {
 if (msg.sender != Predeploys.SUPERCHAIN_WETH) revert Unauthorized();
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that even if we reintroduce the CGT feature in the latest version, it still won’t function properly due to numerous revert conditions throughout the code? Additionally, since CGT has been removed, future updates may not consider this case, making the added feature incompatible with CGT.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's possible, but hopefully will be caught by the other 2 test PRs, especially the e2e test. But yeah it can happen that even the test passes, there're still cases not caught.
We are quite sure that CGT is working for Holocene, but may be left out in subsequent HF. So in the future if we want to enable new HFs, we may need to manually port CGT feature&tests to the new forks.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/SuperchainWETH.sol

 /// @inheritdoc WETH98
 function deposit() public payable override {
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 21, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between CGT and SuperchainWETH (is it related to interoperability)?

Does it imply that an L2 with CGT enabled cannot join the Superchain ecosystem?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 21, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think SuperchainWETH has some assumptions here:
  1. It is supposed to be always "wrapped eth" among the super chains.
  2. The native token on L2 is supposed to be ETH.
The assumptions don't hold when CGT is enabled. I remember previously @yazhenwish mentioned super chains can not have code change?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 21, 2025

Closed

@qzhodlqzhodl
mentioned this pull request
Mar 24, 2025

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qzhodlqzhodlqzhodl approved these changes
@qizhouqizhouAwaiting requested review from qizhou
@pochenaipochenaiAwaiting requested review from pochenai
@ping-keping-keAwaiting requested review from ping-ke
@syntrustsyntrustAwaiting requested review from syntrust

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blockchaindevsh@qizhou@qzhodl

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)" - #29
Open
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Open
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"#29
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Conversation
@blockchaindevsh
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

This reverts commit ef03df7, thus re-enables CGT.
Conflicts:

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@blockchaindevsh
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (ethereum-optimism#13921)"
f9852eb
This reverts commit ef03df7.
Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@qizhou
qizhou
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
changed the title
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (#13921)"Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"Mar 17, 2025
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
Fixed, it was generated automatically.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 18, 2025

Closed

@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
When we merge with upstream, the contracts are automatically merged to the latest develop version.

So the contract changes are expected to be maintained like this:

After the develop version is tested, we cherry-pick the diffs to the corresponding contract release of upstream, to create our corresponding contract release.
The test PRs are yet to come, in order to make this PR not too big. There're 3 upstream PRs in total related with CGT as posted in our group.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I'm now inclined to doing all reverting in this single PR since it'll be a big one anyway.
WDYT?
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
The other two PRs are tests for CGT, so if we want this PR to be tested before merging, we have to include them here.

Otherwise we can merge this PR as is, and apply the tests in a follow-up PR.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Semantic version.
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.6
 string public constant version = "1.0.0-beta.6";
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.5
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we downgrading the version number?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's done automatically when reverting a commit, it should be ok since we're not using the version and it'll be recovered next time we merge with upstream.
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Allows an address to lock ETH liquidity into this contract.
 function burn() external payable {
 if (msg.sender != Predeploys.SUPERCHAIN_WETH) revert Unauthorized();
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that even if we reintroduce the CGT feature in the latest version, it still won’t function properly due to numerous revert conditions throughout the code? Additionally, since CGT has been removed, future updates may not consider this case, making the added feature incompatible with CGT.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's possible, but hopefully will be caught by the other 2 test PRs, especially the e2e test. But yeah it can happen that even the test passes, there're still cases not caught.
We are quite sure that CGT is working for Holocene, but may be left out in subsequent HF. So in the future if we want to enable new HFs, we may need to manually port CGT feature&tests to the new forks.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/SuperchainWETH.sol

 /// @inheritdoc WETH98
 function deposit() public payable override {
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 21, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between CGT and SuperchainWETH (is it related to interoperability)?

Does it imply that an L2 with CGT enabled cannot join the Superchain ecosystem?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 21, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think SuperchainWETH has some assumptions here:
  1. It is supposed to be always "wrapped eth" among the super chains.
  2. The native token on L2 is supposed to be ETH.
The assumptions don't hold when CGT is enabled. I remember previously @yazhenwish mentioned super chains can not have code change?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 21, 2025

Closed

@qzhodlqzhodl
mentioned this pull request
Mar 24, 2025

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qzhodlqzhodlqzhodl approved these changes
@qizhouqizhouAwaiting requested review from qizhou
@pochenaipochenaiAwaiting requested review from pochenai
@ping-keping-keAwaiting requested review from ping-ke
@syntrustsyntrustAwaiting requested review from syntrust

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blockchaindevsh@qizhou@qzhodl

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)" - #29
Open
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Open
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"#29
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Conversation
@blockchaindevsh
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

This reverts commit ef03df7, thus re-enables CGT.
Conflicts:

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@blockchaindevsh
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (ethereum-optimism#13921)"
f9852eb
This reverts commit ef03df7.
Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@qizhou
qizhou
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
changed the title
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (#13921)"Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"Mar 17, 2025
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
Fixed, it was generated automatically.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 18, 2025

Closed

@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
When we merge with upstream, the contracts are automatically merged to the latest develop version.

So the contract changes are expected to be maintained like this:

After the develop version is tested, we cherry-pick the diffs to the corresponding contract release of upstream, to create our corresponding contract release.
The test PRs are yet to come, in order to make this PR not too big. There're 3 upstream PRs in total related with CGT as posted in our group.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I'm now inclined to doing all reverting in this single PR since it'll be a big one anyway.
WDYT?
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
The other two PRs are tests for CGT, so if we want this PR to be tested before merging, we have to include them here.

Otherwise we can merge this PR as is, and apply the tests in a follow-up PR.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Semantic version.
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.6
 string public constant version = "1.0.0-beta.6";
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.5
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we downgrading the version number?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's done automatically when reverting a commit, it should be ok since we're not using the version and it'll be recovered next time we merge with upstream.
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Allows an address to lock ETH liquidity into this contract.
 function burn() external payable {
 if (msg.sender != Predeploys.SUPERCHAIN_WETH) revert Unauthorized();
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that even if we reintroduce the CGT feature in the latest version, it still won’t function properly due to numerous revert conditions throughout the code? Additionally, since CGT has been removed, future updates may not consider this case, making the added feature incompatible with CGT.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's possible, but hopefully will be caught by the other 2 test PRs, especially the e2e test. But yeah it can happen that even the test passes, there're still cases not caught.
We are quite sure that CGT is working for Holocene, but may be left out in subsequent HF. So in the future if we want to enable new HFs, we may need to manually port CGT feature&tests to the new forks.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/SuperchainWETH.sol

 /// @inheritdoc WETH98
 function deposit() public payable override {
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 21, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between CGT and SuperchainWETH (is it related to interoperability)?

Does it imply that an L2 with CGT enabled cannot join the Superchain ecosystem?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 21, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think SuperchainWETH has some assumptions here:
  1. It is supposed to be always "wrapped eth" among the super chains.
  2. The native token on L2 is supposed to be ETH.
The assumptions don't hold when CGT is enabled. I remember previously @yazhenwish mentioned super chains can not have code change?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 21, 2025

Closed

@qzhodlqzhodl
mentioned this pull request
Mar 24, 2025

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qzhodlqzhodlqzhodl approved these changes
@qizhouqizhouAwaiting requested review from qizhou
@pochenaipochenaiAwaiting requested review from pochenai
@ping-keping-keAwaiting requested review from ping-ke
@syntrustsyntrustAwaiting requested review from syntrust

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blockchaindevsh@qizhou@qzhodl

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)" - #29
Open
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Open
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"#29
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Conversation
@blockchaindevsh
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

This reverts commit ef03df7, thus re-enables CGT.
Conflicts:

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@blockchaindevsh
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (ethereum-optimism#13921)"
f9852eb
This reverts commit ef03df7.
Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@qizhou
qizhou
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
changed the title
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (#13921)"Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"Mar 17, 2025
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
Fixed, it was generated automatically.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 18, 2025

Closed

@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
When we merge with upstream, the contracts are automatically merged to the latest develop version.

So the contract changes are expected to be maintained like this:

After the develop version is tested, we cherry-pick the diffs to the corresponding contract release of upstream, to create our corresponding contract release.
The test PRs are yet to come, in order to make this PR not too big. There're 3 upstream PRs in total related with CGT as posted in our group.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I'm now inclined to doing all reverting in this single PR since it'll be a big one anyway.
WDYT?
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
The other two PRs are tests for CGT, so if we want this PR to be tested before merging, we have to include them here.

Otherwise we can merge this PR as is, and apply the tests in a follow-up PR.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Semantic version.
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.6
 string public constant version = "1.0.0-beta.6";
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.5
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we downgrading the version number?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's done automatically when reverting a commit, it should be ok since we're not using the version and it'll be recovered next time we merge with upstream.
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Allows an address to lock ETH liquidity into this contract.
 function burn() external payable {
 if (msg.sender != Predeploys.SUPERCHAIN_WETH) revert Unauthorized();
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that even if we reintroduce the CGT feature in the latest version, it still won’t function properly due to numerous revert conditions throughout the code? Additionally, since CGT has been removed, future updates may not consider this case, making the added feature incompatible with CGT.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's possible, but hopefully will be caught by the other 2 test PRs, especially the e2e test. But yeah it can happen that even the test passes, there're still cases not caught.
We are quite sure that CGT is working for Holocene, but may be left out in subsequent HF. So in the future if we want to enable new HFs, we may need to manually port CGT feature&tests to the new forks.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/SuperchainWETH.sol

 /// @inheritdoc WETH98
 function deposit() public payable override {
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 21, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between CGT and SuperchainWETH (is it related to interoperability)?

Does it imply that an L2 with CGT enabled cannot join the Superchain ecosystem?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 21, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think SuperchainWETH has some assumptions here:
  1. It is supposed to be always "wrapped eth" among the super chains.
  2. The native token on L2 is supposed to be ETH.
The assumptions don't hold when CGT is enabled. I remember previously @yazhenwish mentioned super chains can not have code change?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 21, 2025

Closed

@qzhodlqzhodl
mentioned this pull request
Mar 24, 2025

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qzhodlqzhodlqzhodl approved these changes
@qizhouqizhouAwaiting requested review from qizhou
@pochenaipochenaiAwaiting requested review from pochenai
@ping-keping-keAwaiting requested review from ping-ke
@syntrustsyntrustAwaiting requested review from syntrust

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blockchaindevsh@qizhou@qzhodl

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)" - #29
Open
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Open
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"#29
blockchaindevsh wants to merge 1 commit into
op-esfrom 
cgt
Conversation
@blockchaindevsh
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

This reverts commit ef03df7, thus re-enables CGT.
Conflicts:

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot

packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@blockchaindevsh
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (ethereum-optimism#13921)"
f9852eb
This reverts commit ef03df7.
Conflicts:
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/.gas-snapshot
packages/contracts-bedrock/snapshots/semver-lock.json
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1CrossDomainMessenger.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/L1StandardBridge.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/OptimismPortalInterop.sol
packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/SystemConfigInterop.sol
@qizhou
qizhou
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
changed the title
Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove GCT code (#13921)"Revert "contracts-bedrock: remove CGT code (#13921)"Mar 17, 2025
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 17, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
The title is incorrect: GCT => CGT
Fixed, it was generated automatically.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 18, 2025

Closed

@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Do we want to maintain a separate branch to store the contract code we are using (similar to how Celo does it), or should we keep the old contract code in the default branch and merge upstream changes as needed?
There's a tag beta_contracts pointing to the version for the contracts we're using.
So what is the motivation of this change? Do we want to upgrade these change to the beta testnet?
This change is only for the develop version. We can create a new release version after the develop version is thoroughly tested.
AFAIK there's no project doing overall contracts upgrades besides the super chains right now. Most probably the new release will be used to deploy a new testnet.
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I think if we plan to use the latest contract code for the upcoming mainnet launch, we may need to consider the testnet strategy. We have two options: either upgrade the contract on the beta testnet or deploy a new testnet specifically for validation.
Additionally, have we successfully passed the CircleCI tests for this PR? It would also be beneficial to include details in the PR description about the types of tests conducted to validate these changes.
When we merge with upstream, the contracts are automatically merged to the latest develop version.

So the contract changes are expected to be maintained like this:

After the develop version is tested, we cherry-pick the diffs to the corresponding contract release of upstream, to create our corresponding contract release.
The test PRs are yet to come, in order to make this PR not too big. There're 3 upstream PRs in total related with CGT as posted in our group.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
I'm now inclined to doing all reverting in this single PR since it'll be a big one anyway.
WDYT?
@qzhodl
qzhodl
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
@blockchaindevsh
blockchaindevsh
commented
Mar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
It is a really big PR and it would be more convenient for me (any opinions from other reviewers?) if it is possible to divide it into smaller ones.
The other two PRs are tests for CGT, so if we want this PR to be tested before merging, we have to include them here.

Otherwise we can merge this PR as is, and apply the tests in a follow-up PR.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Semantic version.
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.6
 string public constant version = "1.0.0-beta.6";
 /// @custom:semver 1.0.0-beta.5
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we downgrading the version number?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's done automatically when reverting a commit, it should be ok since we're not using the version and it'll be recovered next time we merge with upstream.
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/ETHLiquidity.sol
 /// @notice Allows an address to lock ETH liquidity into this contract.
 function burn() external payable {
 if (msg.sender != Predeploys.SUPERCHAIN_WETH) revert Unauthorized();
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible that even if we reintroduce the CGT feature in the latest version, it still won’t function properly due to numerous revert conditions throughout the code? Additionally, since CGT has been removed, future updates may not consider this case, making the added feature incompatible with CGT.
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 20, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's possible, but hopefully will be caught by the other 2 test PRs, especially the e2e test. But yeah it can happen that even the test passes, there're still cases not caught.
We are quite sure that CGT is working for Holocene, but may be left out in subsequent HF. So in the future if we want to enable new HFs, we may need to manually port CGT feature&tests to the new forks.
qzhodl
qzhodl
reviewed
Mar 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadpackages/contracts-bedrock/src/L2/SuperchainWETH.sol

 /// @inheritdoc WETH98
 function deposit() public payable override {
 if (IL1Block(Predeploys.L1_BLOCK_ATTRIBUTES).isCustomGasToken()) revert NotCustomGasToken();
@qzhodlqzhodlMar 21, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between CGT and SuperchainWETH (is it related to interoperability)?

Does it imply that an L2 with CGT enabled cannot join the Superchain ecosystem?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevshMar 21, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Author
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think SuperchainWETH has some assumptions here:
  1. It is supposed to be always "wrapped eth" among the super chains.
  2. The native token on L2 is supposed to be ETH.
The assumptions don't hold when CGT is enabled. I remember previously @yazhenwish mentioned super chains can not have code change?
@blockchaindevshblockchaindevsh
mentioned this pull request
Mar 21, 2025

Closed

@qzhodlqzhodl
mentioned this pull request
Mar 24, 2025

Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@qzhodlqzhodlqzhodl approved these changes
@qizhouqizhouAwaiting requested review from qizhou
@pochenaipochenaiAwaiting requested review from pochenai
@ping-keping-keAwaiting requested review from ping-ke
@syntrustsyntrustAwaiting requested review from syntrust

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@blockchaindevsh@qizhou@qzhodl