Update Crosschain contract: transition from CAIP-10 to ERC-7930 #171
Conversation
|
Note: |
| event Received(bytes32 indexed receiveId, address gateway); | ||
| event ExecutionSuccess(bytes32 indexed receiveId); | ||
| event ExecutionFailed(bytes32 indexed receiveId); | ||
| event GatewayAdded(address indexed gateway); | ||
| event GatewayRemoved(address indexed gateway); | ||
| event ThresholdUpdated(uint8 threshold); | ||
|
|
||
| error ERC7786AggregatorValueNotSupported(); | ||
| error UnsupportedNativeTransfer(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this error will throw an "Already declared identifier" if used along with AxelarGatewaySource (i.e. contract A is ERC7786Aggregator, AxelarGatewaySource, ... {}).
We may want to create a library for 7786-related errors
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can rename that error, but the aggregator is an independant contract that does calls to gateways. The aggregator should NOT inherit from another gateway implementation.
I think the analogy is ERC-4626 <> ERC-20.
ERC-4626 implements the ERC-20 interface, and all the corresponding logic, but you would not do contract A is ERC4626, WETH, ... {}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it, I just don't think this is an aggregator then..., it's more like a redundant bridge
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Its going to be renamed anyway. The current marking name is "ERC7786OpenBridge". Makes little sens in my opinion.
I think "multibridge" might be a good option.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More in favor of MultiBridge after past discussions but happy with OpenBridge since marketing has gone with that one.
Co-authored-by: Ernesto García <[email protected]>
Based on #169