feat: entry point service private event support #6

zeluisping · 2025-10-21T11:44:04Z

Description

This PR integrates private event support into the EntryPointService's getUserOperationEvent method, enabling it to retrieve user operation events from private event logs.

Key Changes:

Private Event Querying: Updated getUserOperationEvent() to query for PrivateEvent
Event Filtering: Filters private events by eventType to only retrieve UserOperationEvent emissions
Event Unwrapping: Unwraps private event payloads and validates the userOpHash matches the requested operation
Search Behaviour: Checks for private events, filtering by eventType, to locate the requested user operation event
Error Handling: Added error logging for private event unwrapping failures without breaking the flow

Implementation Details:

Uses the centralised event ABI definitions and unwrapping utilities from utils/abi-events
Each private log is validated, unwrapped, and checked against the target userOpHash
Returns the first matching unwrapped event, maintaining the same return type as the public event path
Failed unwrapping attempts are logged, but don't prevent checking remaining logs

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce?
Put an x in the boxes that apply

Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
- Removes support for public events of UserOperationEvent
Documentation Update
Code style update (formatting, renaming)
Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
Build related changes
Other (please describe):

Further comments (optional)

Removed support for the public events that were privatised; these are now handled solely as PrivateEvents

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This PR integrates private event support into the EntryPointService, enabling retrieval of user operation events from private event logs. The implementation replaces public UserOperationEvent querying with PrivateEvent handling throughout the bundler's RPC methods, while introducing Silent Data authentication header support.

Key Changes:

Added SDAuthHeaders type and extraction utility to handle Silent Data authentication headers
Modified getUserOperationEvent() to query for PrivateEvent logs filtered by event type, unwrap private payloads, and validate against the requested userOpHash
Updated method signatures across the service layer to propagate SDAuthHeaders from API endpoints through to the entry point service
Added validation to require Silent Data auth headers for eth_getUserOperationReceipt and eth_getUserOperationByHash RPC methods

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
packages/types/src/api/interfaces.ts	Introduces `SDAuthHeaders` type definition and `pickSDAuthHeaders` extraction utility
packages/executor/src/services/EntryPointService/versions/base.ts	Updates interface signatures to include `sdAuthHeaders` parameter
packages/executor/src/services/EntryPointService/versions/0.0.7.ts	Implements private event querying with header forwarding, event unwrapping, and validation logic
packages/executor/src/services/EntryPointService/service.ts	Propagates `sdAuthHeaders` through service method calls
packages/executor/src/modules/eth.ts	Updates method signatures and comments out mempool checks due to auth requirements
packages/api/src/modules/eth.ts	Adds `sdAuthHeaders` parameter to API module methods
packages/api/src/app.ts	Extracts Silent Data headers from requests and enforces their presence for specific RPC methods

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-11-12T18:15:04Z

packages/executor/src/services/EntryPointService/versions/0.0.7.ts

+    const {
+      'x-from-block': headerFromBlock,
+      ...headersToForward
+    } = sdAuthHeaders


The x-from-block header is extracted and excluded from forwarding, but if it's undefined, headerFromBlock will be undefined. This could lead to unexpected behavior in the subsequent logic. Consider adding explicit undefined handling or documentation explaining the expected behavior when this header is absent.

Copilot · 2025-11-12T18:15:04Z

packages/executor/src/services/EntryPointService/versions/0.0.7.ts

+            headers: Object
+              .entries(headersToForward)
+              .reduce((headersToSend, [key, value]) => {
+                if (value !== undefined) {
+                  headersToSend[key] = value
+                }
+                return headersToSend
+              }, {} as Record<string, string>),


[nitpick] This reduce operation to filter undefined values could be simplified using Object.fromEntries with filter: Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(headersToForward).filter(([_, value]) => value !== undefined)). This would improve readability and reduce code complexity.

Suggested change

headers: Object

.entries(headersToForward)

.reduce((headersToSend, [key, value]) => {

if (value !== undefined) {

headersToSend[key] = value

}

return headersToSend

}, {} as Record<string, string>),

headers: Object.fromEntries(

Object.entries(headersToForward)

.filter(([_, value]) => value !== undefined)

),

Copilot · 2025-11-12T18:15:05Z

packages/executor/src/services/EntryPointService/versions/0.0.7.ts

+          }
+        } catch (error) {
+          this.logger.error(
+            `Failed to unwrap PrivateEvent for ${UserOperationEventAbi.name}: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : JSON.stringify(error)}`


The error message includes UserOperationEventAbi.name, but if the ABI object doesn't have a name property or it's undefined, this will log 'undefined'. Consider adding a fallback value like UserOperationEventAbi.name || 'UserOperationEvent' to ensure a meaningful error message.

Suggested change

`Failed to unwrap PrivateEvent for ${UserOperationEventAbi.name}: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : JSON.stringify(error)}`

`Failed to unwrap PrivateEvent for ${UserOperationEventAbi.name || 'UserOperationEvent'}: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : JSON.stringify(error)}`

Copilot · 2025-11-12T18:15:05Z

packages/executor/src/modules/eth.ts

-      }
-    }
-    const rpcUserOp = await this.entryPointService.getUserOperationByHash(hash);
+    // Silent Data auth is checked in the chain RPC, mempool check not supported


[nitpick] Corrected capitalization: 'auth' should be capitalized as 'Auth' to match the naming convention used elsewhere in the codebase (e.g., 'SDAuthHeaders').

Suggested change

// Silent Data auth is checked in the chain RPC, mempool check not supported

// Silent Data Auth is checked in the chain RPC, mempool check not supported

Copilot · 2025-11-12T18:15:05Z

packages/api/src/app.ts

+          if (!sdAuthHeaders) {
+            throw new RpcError(
+              "Missing Silent Data auth headers",
+              RpcErrorCodes.METHOD_NOT_FOUND
+            );
+          }


Using METHOD_NOT_FOUND error code for missing authentication headers is semantically incorrect. This error code typically indicates the RPC method doesn't exist. Consider using INVALID_REQUEST or creating a specific authentication error code like UNAUTHORIZED to accurately represent the authentication failure.

seromenho · 2025-11-12T19:27:22Z

packages/api/src/app.ts

              request,
              req.ip,
              req.headers.authorization
+              // Silent Data auth headers not supported for websocket requests


This block code is not related to websockets but to batch requests.
I'm not sure if the bundler supports batch requests well in the custom RPC, but we should still extract sdAuthHeaders before the loop and pass them to each handleRpcRequest call. This ensures batch requests work with private event methods if they're supported.

seromenho · 2025-11-12T19:28:20Z

packages/api/src/app.ts

        case BundlerRPCMethods.eth_getUserOperationReceipt:
-          result = await this.ethApi.getUserOperationReceipt(params[0]);
+          if (!sdAuthHeaders) {
+            throw new RpcError(


We need a new error code (e.g., MISSING_AUTH_HEADERS = -32604) instead of METHOD_NOT_FOUND. The error message should be: "Silent Data authentication headers are required for this method. Please include x-timestamp and x-signature (or x-eip712-signature) headers in your request."

seromenho · 2025-11-12T19:30:35Z

packages/executor/src/modules/eth.ts

+    hash: string,
+    sdAuthHeaders: SDAuthHeaders,
  ): Promise<UserOperationByHashResponse | null> {
-    const entry = await this.mempoolService.getEntryByHash(hash);


Nice one! We are skipping the mempool because it's up to the Custom RPC to decide on the Auth 👍

seromenho · 2025-11-12T19:32:13Z

packages/executor/src/services/EntryPointService/versions/0.0.7.ts

+          fetchOptions: {
+            headers: Object
+              .entries(headersToForward)
+              .reduce((headersToSend, [key, value]) => {


Very minor: consider using Object.fromEntries with filter for better readability.

seromenho · 2025-11-12T19:40:17Z

packages/api/src/app.ts

        }
        case BundlerRPCMethods.eth_getUserOperationReceipt:
-          result = await this.ethApi.getUserOperationReceipt(params[0]);
+          if (!sdAuthHeaders) {


Instead of just checking if (!sdAuthHeaders), create a validation method that checks for required headers. At minimum, either x-signature OR x-eip712-signature must be present, and x-timestamp should be present.

feat: entry point service private event support

b7a6274

zeluisping requested a review from seromenho October 21, 2025 11:44

zeluisping self-assigned this Oct 21, 2025

zeluisping added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 21, 2025

zeluisping added 6 commits October 22, 2025 15:42

chore: remove public event support, private only

2413215

chore: add silent data auth headers types

52ef3fc

feat: add silent data headers support to api (single rpc call only)

c322029

chore: pass silent data auth headers down to executor

59ad0f0

chore: disable mempool fetch for lack of auth, straight to rpc

eede633

feat: use silent data auth headers to fetch user operations

3fa6709

seromenho requested a review from Copilot November 12, 2025 18:13

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

seromenho reviewed Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat: entry point service private event support #6

feat: entry point service private event support #6

zeluisping commented Oct 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

	`Failed to unwrap PrivateEvent for ${UserOperationEventAbi.name}: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : JSON.stringify(error)}`
	`Failed to unwrap PrivateEvent for ${UserOperationEventAbi.name \|\| 'UserOperationEvent'}: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : JSON.stringify(error)}`

	// Silent Data auth is checked in the chain RPC, mempool check not supported
	// Silent Data Auth is checked in the chain RPC, mempool check not supported

feat: entry point service private event support #6

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: entry point service private event support #6

Conversation

zeluisping commented Oct 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Types of changes

Further comments (optional)

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Reviewed Changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

seromenho Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

zeluisping commented Oct 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading