docs(IActivationRegistry): warn integrators not to use code presence as activation signal (BOP-322)#151
Closed
rayyan224 wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
rayyan224
requested review from
amiecorso,
eric-ships,
ilikesymmetry and
stevieraykatz
as code owners
…as activation signal (BOP-322) The precompile writes a bytecode marker to its storage account on first activate and does not clear it on deactivation, so EXTCODESIZE/EXTCODEHASH at the registry address reflect initialisation state only. Add an explicit NatSpec integration note directing consumers to isActivated() instead. Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
rayyan224
force-pushed
the
rayyanalam/bop-322-activation-bytecode-marker-doc
branch
from
9be776a to
77090b2
Compare
Interface Coverage✅ All interface functions have test coverage. |
📊 Forge Coverage (
|
| File | Lines | Stmts | Branches | Funcs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🟢 B20FactoryLib.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟢 MockActivationRegistry.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟢 MockActivationRegistryStorage.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟢 MockB20.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟢 MockB20Asset.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟡 MockB20Factory.sol | 98.95% | 99.08% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟢 MockB20Stablecoin.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟢 MockB20Storage.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟢 MockPolicyRegistry.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 🟢 MockPolicyRegistryStorage.sol | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| Total | 99.86% | 99.88% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
Full report: download artifact. To browse locally: make coverage (runs forge coverage + genhtml + opens the HTML report).
Collaborator
|
I feel weird even having to declare this behavior given I don’t understand why we built it this way. Why are we doing anything other than storage updates? Also, why would an integrator not use our explicit view function. Feels like not our issue if someone uses an unspecified path for something with an obvious specified path. I prefer no-op to this comment. |
✅ Fork tests: all 608 passedbase/base is fully in sync with the base-std spec. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
IActivationRegistrywarning thatEXTCODESIZE/EXTCODEHASHat the registry address are not reliable signals for feature activation state (BOP-322).activateand does not clear it if features are later deactivated, so code presence only reflects initialisation, not live state.isActivated(feature)as the authoritative source.Companion to base/base#3366 (
ericliu/bop-322-fix-v2) which addresses the implementation side.Test plan
src/interfaces/IActivationRegistry.solfor accuracy and clarity.