fix(protocol): fix chainid check to allow the case where chainid = type(uint64).max to still be valid, per the implied intention of type downcasting

[n1punp]

My assumption is that from the casting in resolve function, the chainid gets downcasted to uint64, so to prevent any possible attack on duplicate chainid due to downcasting, the chainid check is done. However, the check should still be allowed for when chainid == type(uint64).max.

function resolve(
        uint64 chainId,
        bytes32 name,
        bool allowZeroAddress
    )
        public
        view
        virtual
        returns (address payable addr)
    {
        return _resolve(chainId, name, allowZeroAddress);
    }

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Updated the chain ID checking logic in the Address Resolver to enhance compatibility with future chain IDs.
  • Made a semantic change in the validation of chain ID comparison logic in the TaikoL2 contract.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes involve refining the chain ID verification logic in the AddressResolver contract. The update shifts from a "greater than or equal to" comparison to a "greater than" comparison when checking the chain ID against the maximum uint64 value, enhancing the contract's validation process.

Changes

File	Change Summary
.../protocol/contracts/common/AddressResolver.sol .../protocol/contracts/L2/TaikoL2.sol	Updated chain ID checks from >= to > comparison against `type(uint64).max.

🐰✨
A tiny hop in code, a giant leap in logic,
From "or equal" to "greater," the change is quite magic.
Through blockchain's vast warren, with precision we thread,
Ensuring each contract is perfectly led.
So here's to the devs, with their wisdom so bright,
Guiding our code through the blockchain's night.
🌟🐇

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

---

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit-tests for this file.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository from git and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between cd35d69 and 5574f77.

Files selected for processing (1)

• packages/protocol/contracts/common/AddressResolver.sol (1 hunks)

Additional comments: 1

packages/protocol/contracts/common/AddressResolver.sol (1)

• 97-97: The change from >= to > in the comparison against type(uint64).max correctly aligns with the PR's objective to allow chainId values that are equal to type(uint64).max. This adjustment ensures that the contract can handle the maximum uint64 value without imposing unintended restrictions.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5574f77 and 1dea85e.

Files selected for processing (1)

• packages/protocol/contracts/L2/TaikoL2.sol (1 hunks)

Additional comments: 1

packages/protocol/contracts/L2/TaikoL2.sol (1)

• 81-81: The condition if (block.chainid <= 1 || block.chainid > type(uint64).max) correctly checks if block.chainid is outside the valid range for a uint64. However, the PR description suggests adjusting the logic to allow chainId values equal to type(uint64).max, which this condition already supports. Ensure the PR description aligns with the actual change, which seems to be a clarification rather than a functional adjustment.