Simplify ERC-7579 validator modules #159
Merged
Conversation
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
|
Looks good. Merging to unblock a PR on Wizard |
ernestognw
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While working on the documentation (#157) and a PoC in Wizard for ERC-7579 modules. I noticed that the
_rawSignatureValidationWithSenderwas receivingsenderwhen that's only relevant in theisValidSignatureWithSenderspecified in ERC-7579.Also, I noticed that if converted into a basic
_rawERC7579Validation(address account, bytes32 hash, bytes calldata signature), then it was possible to reuse that function in ERC7579Multisig (and all derived multisig modules). Given that module types are not mutually exclusive, then it makes sense to convert multisigs into validators.