Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(entrykit): initial release #3419

Merged
merged 491 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025
Merged

feat(entrykit): initial release #3419

merged 491 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025

Conversation

holic
Copy link
Member

@holic holic commented Jan 7, 2025

pulled out of #3240

Comment on lines +11 to +14
// TODO: automatically grant allowance in anvil instead of requiring the service
// quarryPassIssuer: {
// http: ["http://127.0.0.1:3003/rpc"],
// },
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
// TODO: automatically grant allowance in anvil instead of requiring the service
// quarryPassIssuer: {
// http: ["http://127.0.0.1:3003/rpc"],
// },

is this solved by using the generous paymaster (or anvil top up) locally?

Copy link
Member Author

@holic holic Jan 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the entrykit playground is our development environment, nothing shipped to users, so leaving this will let us more easily play with quarry stuff locally

there tends to be a lot of things to configure in various spots, so commenting this out here is sort of a breadcrumb trail for myself to remember all the things to turn on before getting things wired up properly

in the future, could consider putting this behind some sort of quarry flag where all the quarry params/config are wired in, but there's also services etc. to run in mprocs that make it a bit hard to do conditionally

) : (
// TODO: convert this to a <ButtonLink>
<a
// TODO: is redstone a fine fallback if chain is not supported or not in our JSON?
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i think if relay link doesn't support the chain we should probably not show the top up button or throw an error 🤔 would be bad for users to accidentally to bridge to redstone bc the actual chain wasn't in the config json

Comment on lines +5 to +20
// TODO: revisit after demo (don't hardcode gas)

type rpcMethod = getRpcMethod<BundlerRpcSchema, "eth_estimateUserOperationGas">;

export async function estimateUserOperationGas(
// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-unused-vars
_params: rpcMethod["Parameters"],
): Promise<rpcMethod["ReturnType"]> {
return formatUserOperationRequest({
callGasLimit: 20_000_000n,
preVerificationGas: 200_000n,
verificationGasLimit: 2_000_000n,
paymasterVerificationGasLimit: 200_000n,
paymasterPostOpGasLimit: 200_000n,
});
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

wonder if for now we should do the rpc call and accept the additional round trip rather than hardcoding by default

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

iirc an rpc call is done automatically when this isn't defined here, and there were issues estimating gas when lazily creating the smart account (both passkey and session account)

I can remove for now to see if it works, and if so, revisit this when we get back to passkey smart accounts

alvrs
alvrs previously approved these changes Jan 8, 2025
Copy link
Member

@alvrs alvrs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nothing blocking!

@vercel vercel bot temporarily deployed to Preview – explorer January 9, 2025 10:09 Inactive
@holic holic merged commit 971ffed into main Jan 9, 2025
16 checks passed
@holic holic deleted the entrykit-v0 branch January 9, 2025 10:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants