Simple script vm #407
Simple script vm #407
Conversation
| * - undefined if no tokens are approved | ||
| * - 'unknown' if the tokens cannot be determined | ||
| * - an array of tokens if the tokens are known | ||
| */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you have better types for this?
| break | ||
| } | ||
| default: | ||
| unimplemented(instr.name) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instructions that are not used much in TxScript are not implemented for now.
| break | ||
| case 'Dup': | ||
| const val = operandStack.pop() | ||
| operandStack.push(val) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to push the val twice for the Dup instr.
| type SimulatorVar<K extends string, V> = { kind: K; value: V } | { kind: `Symbol-${K}`; value: undefined } | ||
|
|
||
| function unaryOp<K extends string, V>(x: SimulatorVar<K, V>, op: (x: V) => V): SimulatorVar<K, V> { | ||
| if (x.kind.startsWith('symbol')) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to use Symbol instead of symbol in these *Op functions? It seems that 'Symbol-Bool'.startsWith('symbol') returns false.
test/transact.test.ts
Outdated
| expect(getCalls1[0].approvedTokens).toBe(undefined) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| it.only('should use transact methods for token', async function () { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to remove the only here?
test/transact.test.ts
Outdated
| expect(deployCalls2.length).toBe(0) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| it.only('should test multicall', async function () { |
| if (spender.kind.startsWith('Symbol')) { | ||
| approved.setUnknown() // The spender might be the caller | ||
| } else if (spender === callerAddress) { | ||
| approved.addApprovedAttoAlph(amount) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we set the approved to unknown as well if callerAddress isn't spender?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We only show the approvals for call address in the return, so we don't need to care about other addresses.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am thinking about perhaps this would underestimate the total amount of approvals in corner cases, since we could have something like
foo.call{callerAddress!() -> 1 alph, alice -> 2 alph)(...)
where alice is actually the same as callerAddress!(). Could this happen?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If alice's address is unknown, then branch spender.kind.startsWith('Symbol') will be executed, the approved assets would be set to unknown.
If alice's address is known, then we will compare if the address is equal to caller address.
A symbolic execution vm for tx scripts. Most of the TxScript instructions are implemented, we could add more based on feedback.
Not many unit tests for now as I don't have much time. We could add them in the future.