## Summary
- sync `contracts/lib/eigenlayer-contracts` to tag
`v1.8.0-testnet-final` and refresh `EIGENLAYER.md` with the new commit
reference
- update local/test deployment flows to deploy the upstream
`EigenStrategy`, feed it into `AllocationManager`/`StrategyManager`, and
adopt the revised `EigenPod` constructor
- drop the obsolete `AllocationManagerMock` stub and replace its usage
with targeted `vm.mockCall` stubs that return `slashOperator` share data
- adjust slasher unit tests to match the new ABI so DataHaven stays
aligned with EigenLayer 1.8 semantics
## Testing
- forge build
- forge test
### PR Description
Add a comprehensive end-to-end test that validates rewards distribution
across the full system (chain → bridge → execution environment).
### Use cases covered
- Verify the rewards infrastructure is correctly deployed and reachable.
- Detect the end-of-era rewards emission and capture its essential data.
- Confirm the cross-chain delivery and execution of the rewards message.
- Ensure the rewards registry updates with the new root and can be
queried.
- Generate per-validator proofs for claiming rewards.
- Successfully claim rewards for a validator and validate the payout is
reflected.
- Prevent a second (double) claim for the same index with a proper
rejection.
---------
Co-authored-by: Steve Degosserie <723552+stiiifff@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary of changes
- We decided to remove the topics and nonce from the massage encoding
since we don't use them (original commit:
ee2a3f2fd4).
- Besides, we already have a nonce at the Snowbridge message level
f4ab5c2b2e/operator/primitives/snowbridge/inbound-queue/src/v2/message.rs (L105)
- I had to recreate the static test for _encoding_ (happens in
[DataHavenSnowbridgeMessages.sol](d12d40634f/contracts/src/libraries/DataHavenSnowbridgeMessages.sol)
) / _decoding_ (happens in
[operator/primitives/bridge/src/lib.rs)](f9f9cc65fe/operator/primitives/bridge/src/lib.rs).
Now it matches the current structure. The idea is that now we can test
that we don't break the decoding in followup refactoring.
- Fixes a problem with EigenLayer validator addresses. In all our
contracts we were using `bytes32` to refer to a Solochain validator
address. But on our Substrate change we actually expect AccountId20, so
only 20 bytes. This was causing the decoding to fail.
- I opted for the minimal change that would be to take the right-most 20
bytes to send that to our chain. But we might want aswell to limit our
EigenLayer contracts to be only 20 bytes long. @ahmadkaouk showcase this
[here](92a34c273c)
- Adds a bash script to run the static test. The test will compile the
contracts, run the encoding test, compile the operator, and run the
decoding test. This saves a huge amount of time since we don't need to
run the full e2e setup. The way of running it is the following:
```bash
cd operator/test/scripts
./test_message_encoding.sh
```
- As a consequence of this PR, the execution relayer now works properly.
EDIT:
> [!IMPORTANT]
**We decided to use 20-byte addresses in our contracts**. So what is
stated above is not valid anymore.
The change implies that the mapping from Ethereum addresses to bytes32
addresses now it's a mapping as follows:
dd3ba99ac0/contracts/src/DataHavenServiceManager.sol (L51-L52)
I've updated helper functions, tests, etc to be compliant with this
change. The execution relayer and beefy relayer look stable now.
---------
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Kaouk <ahmadkaouk.93@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Kaouk <56095276+ahmadkaouk@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description
This PR implements a comprehensive overhaul of the `RewardsRegistry`
contract to maintain complete history of reward merkle roots while
providing index-based claim tracking for operators. The new architecture
enables operators to claim rewards from any historical merkle root
instead of only the latest one. To do so, it:
- Adds the `merkleRootHistory` storage array to the contract, in which
we keep all rewards roots that ever came from the DataHaven side.
- Adds the `operatorClaimedByIndex` storage map to the contract, in
which we keep track, for each validator and root index, if it has
claimed it or not.
- This works even for new validators, since theoretically with this
system you could argue they could claim older roots that they were not a
part of which would be catastrophic, but they could never draft a
correct proof for those to claim them.
- Keeps some of the interface from before the overhaul, to have quick
access to the latest rewards merkle root through `getLatestMerkleRoot()`
and to claim rewards for it with `claimRewards()`. This is because the
expected behaviour is for validators to claim their rewards every era.
- Adds a way to batch claim rewards with `claimRewardsBatch()`. This
function allows a validator to claim rewards for multiple root indices
in one call by providing multiple proofs, useful if the validator has
fallen behind claims and has to catch up, although special care will
have to be taken by it to avoid reaching the gas limit of a transaction.
## Storage Efficiency Analysis
One might think this solution is not as storage-efficient as other
solutions that we can think of (I even had two other alternatives in
mind as well), but a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation gives us
peace of mind that the impact of this solution on the overal state size
of the chain is negligible:
### Assumptions (Worst Case Scenario):
- 1,000 validators (actual estimate for DataHaven: ~50/100 validators)
- 6-hour eras (most-likely scenario, following what Polkadot does:
~24-hour eras)
- Which means 4 merkle root updates per day
### Annual Storage Requirements:
- Merkle Root History: **46,720 bytes/year**
- 4 roots/day × 32 bytes/root × 365 days/year = 46,720 bytes/year
- Operator Claim Tracking: **~1.46 MB/year**
- 1,000 operators × 1 boolean/(operator * root index) × 1 byte/boolean ×
4 root indices/day × 365 days/year = 1,460,000 bytes/year
- **Total: ~1.5 MB/year**
This represents negligible storage overhead compared to the significant
operational benefits gained.
## TODO
Since we want to allow the operators/validators to only have to interact
with the AVS contract (that's why the `claimRewards` functions have the
`onlyAVS` modifier), we still have to:
- [x] Add the required functions to the AVS to allow operators to claim
their rewards.
- [x] Adds comprehensive unit tests for them.
---------
Co-authored-by: Steve Degosserie <723552+stiiifff@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Kaouk <56095276+ahmadkaouk@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Kaouk <ahmadkaouk.93@gmail.com>
In this PR:
1. Add new `datahaven-node-local.dockerfile` for building a local image
with the locally built DataHaven Node binary. This severely improves
iteration speed on running `bun cli` if there are changes in the DH
node. Previously, it relied on the published dockerfile, which builds
the Cargo project inside of it, taking +20m even with no changes.
2. Building this local dockerfile is integrated to the CLI, which now
also asks if the user wants to rebuild the local docker image of the DH
node.
3. A new script `cargo-crossbuild` is added, to be able to build the
DataHaven node Cargo project both from Mac and Linux, with the target
being `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu`. For building from Mac, it uses `cargo
zigbuild`, so `zig` is now a dependency. Building for this target is
needed because the docker image is an Ubuntu image, so it will need to
run a linux binary.
4. Added `zig` as dependency in docs.
5. CI still uses the docker image built by the CI itself, which builds
the Cargo project inside of it. The CI can take advantage of caching for
this.
## Summary
This PR adds statically typed bindings for contracts. This allows you to
write E2E tests with full completions in TS.
## Additions
- `ts-build.yml` New CI, this will make sure that if there's changes
made to the contracts that the contract-bindings are up to date.
- `package.json` script changes
- `start:e2e:ci` - Designed to be run with all options specified since
CIs are famously bad with iteractive CLI prompts
- `test:e2e` - added timeout
- `generate:wagmi` - This generates the smart contract bindings for our
tests
- New Function Helpers:
- `generateRandomAccount()` Returns a viem account type object for a
random account. Useful for tests where you want idempotency on a long
lived network since the state is probabilistically fresh
- `getContractInstance()` Returns a viem contract instance that allows
you to read/write to the deployed contract. You should get full type
inference here for the methods available and parameters required.
### Example
```ts
it("avs() can be read from contract instance", async () => {
const value = await instance.read.avs();
expect(isAddress(value), "AVS getter should return an address").toBeTrue();
});
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Facundo Farall <37149322+ffarall@users.noreply.github.com>
