fix: comment for excess fee refund address #167
Conversation
Co-authored-by: gzeon <hng@offchainlabs.com>
Jason-W123
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we should also sync these change with the inbox e.g.
nitro-contracts/src/bridge/IInbox.sol
Line 80 in 90037b9
Co-authored-by: gzeon <hng@offchainlabs.com>
src/bridge/IERC20Inbox.sol
Outdated
| @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ interface IERC20Inbox is IInboxBase { | |||
| * @param to destination L2 contract address | |||
| * @param l2CallValue call value for retryable L2 message | |||
| * @param maxSubmissionCost Max gas deducted from user's L2 balance to cover base submission fee | |||
| * @param excessFeeRefundAddress gasLimit x maxFeePerGas - execution cost gets credited here on L2 balance | |||
| * @param excessFeeRefundAddress (gasLimit x maxFeePerGas - execution cost) + (maxSubmission - (autoredeem ? 0 : submission cost)) gets credited here on L2 balance | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this is actually a little bit more nuanced for the unsafe entrypoint since you might have l1callvalue < l2callvalue + fees, and you can only get fee refund for at most l1callvaue - l2callvalue
i.e.
max(0,min(l1callvalue - l2callvalue, gasLimit x maxFeePerGas + maxSubmission)) - execution cost - (autoredeem ? 0 : submission cost) lol
I am thinking if we want to be so elaborated here or we should just put a high level description here while have the detail example in docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree to put max(0,min(l1callvalue - l2callvalue, gasLimit x maxFeePerGas + maxSubmission)) - execution cost - (autoredeem ? 0 : submission cost) here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you missed the l1callvalue - l2callvalue part
see if we have time to discuss in standup
No description provided.