Fallback Inbox contract changes #278

philippecamacho · 2025-11-14T14:02:58Z

Closes https://app.asana.com/1/1208976916964769/project/1209423958092927/task/1211849813289225?focus=true

This PR:

Make changes to the Inbox contract so that it allows two batchers. The specification of this contract change can be found at https://eng-wiki.espressosys.com/mainch36.html#:Components:Base%20Layer%20Batch%20Validation:Batch%20Inbox%20Contract (see paragraph "Allowing different batchers")
Extend the CI test suite to run L1 contract tests
Remove the concept of preapproved batcher key and replace it with the non TEE batcher key, while introducing the TEE batcher key.
Remove test TestRotateBatcherKey as the batcher key rotation will happen in the Inbox contract.
NOT RELATED to the fallback inbox contract changes, but the circle ci tests that are failing have been deactivated for now. We can reactivate them later once they pass.

This PR does not:

Implement the full fallback mechanism. This will be addressed in another PR.

Key places to review:

Focus on the smart contract changes, in particular packages/contracts-bedrock/test/L1/BatchInbox.t.sol.

How to test this PR:

cd packages/contracts-bedrock/
forge test  --match-path test/L1/BatchInbox.t.sol

Things tested

The core logic of the new inbox contract with about handling two batchers and allowing to switch from one to another. See packages/contracts-bedrock/test/L1/BatchInbox.t.sol.

.circleci/config.yml

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/BatchInbox.sol

…r passing.

…rent.

…E batchers.

…e pass to the constructor.

… the inbox contract.

shenkeyao · 2025-11-26T21:22:00Z

packages/contracts-bedrock/test/L1/BatchInbox.t.sol

+contract MockBatchAuthenticator {
+    mapping(bytes32 => bool) private validHashes;
+
+    function setValidBatchInfo(bytes32 hash, bool valid) external {


Nit: Similar to the comment above, setBatchValidity might be a better name.

shenkeyao · 2025-11-26T21:23:02Z

packages/contracts-bedrock/test/L1/BatchInbox.t.sol

+/// @title MockBatchAuthenticator
+/// @notice Mock implementation for testing - only implements validBatchInfo
+contract MockBatchAuthenticator {
+    mapping(bytes32 => bool) private validHashes;


Nit: hashValidities might be a more accurate name since the mapped bool might be false.

shenkeyao · 2025-11-26T21:23:52Z

packages/contracts-bedrock/test/L1/BatchInbox.t.sol

+        validHashes[hash] = valid;
+    }
+
+    function validBatchInfo(bytes32 hash) external view returns (bool) {


Nit: Similar to the comment above, batchValidity might be a better name.

shenkeyao · 2025-11-26T21:54:03Z

packages/contracts-bedrock/test/L1/BatchInbox.t.sol

+
+    function setUp() public virtual {
+        authenticator = new MockBatchAuthenticator();
+        inbox = new BatchInbox(nonTeeBatcher, IBatchAuthenticator(address(authenticator)), deployer);


Will test_fallback_nonTeeBatcherDoesNotRequireAuth fail if we don't construct a BatchInbox with the nonTeeBatcher here, similar to test_fallback_unauthorizedAddressReverts? If so, do we have any setup for the teeBatcher? I guess there is, otherwise there's no way to distinguish authorized vs. unauthorized batchers, but I just don't find it in this file.

These are questions to check my understanding, not requesting any changes.

shenkeyao · 2025-11-26T22:01:51Z

op-e2e/config/init.go

-			if allocType == AllocTypeEspressoWithoutEnclave {
-				batcherPk, err := crypto.HexToECDSA(ESPRESSO_PRE_APPROVED_BATCHER_PRIVATE_KEY)
+			// Configure Espresso allocation types
+			if allocType == AllocTypeEspresso || allocType == AllocTypeEspressoWithoutEnclave || allocType == AllocTypeEspressoWithEnclave {


Why do we have AllocTypeEspresso when we also have *WithEnclave and *WithoutEnclave?

Oh AllocTypeEspresso isn't introduced in this PR. @QuentinI looks like these three types were added from these two PRs on the same day: #110 and #144. Maybe there was some merge weirdness and we only wanted to keep the With and Without types?

shenkeyao · 2025-11-26T22:03:44Z

op-e2e/config/init.go

-			if allocType == AllocTypeEspressoWithEnclave {
-				intent.Chains[0].EspressoEnabled = true
+				intent.Chains[0].NonTeeBatcher = crypto.PubkeyToAddress(batcherPk.PublicKey)
+				intent.Chains[0].TeeBatcher = crypto.PubkeyToAddress(batcherPk.PublicKey)


Is it for simplicity that we now set TeeBatcher even when allocType == AllocTypeEspressoWithoutEnclave? I think it's fine to set but not use it--just wanted to make sure it's intentional to put it in this condition clause.

philippecamacho mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2025

Fallback contract changes #271

Closed

philippecamacho force-pushed the philippe/fallback-contracts-change-new branch from b09bfab to 62d96d3 Compare November 14, 2025 20:06

philippecamacho requested review from QuentinI and alysiahuggins November 15, 2025 15:17

philippecamacho marked this pull request as ready for review November 15, 2025 15:18

philippecamacho requested review from dailinsubjam and shenkeyao November 17, 2025 19:01

dailinsubjam reviewed Nov 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

.circleci/config.yml Show resolved Hide resolved

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/BatchInbox.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

packages/contracts-bedrock/src/L1/BatchInbox.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

philippecamacho added 22 commits November 26, 2025 13:43

Changes to the inbox contract. Test TestBatchInbox_SwitchActiveBatche…

d624920

…r passing.

Fix logical error in the Inbox contract.

2f577a9

Fix golint errors

5cd563c

Remove unneeded changes.

621381c

Fix configuration

c6d0463

Inbox contract unit test.

204b7f9

Remove integration test for Inbox contract that was confusing.

506396c

Fix solidity formatting.

2959348

Fix configuration

df974d8

Run the L1 contracts tests in CI.

487ffef

Pinpoint forge version

cc9fc85

Trying to fix configuration issue for e2e tests.

6d1e500

Small configuration change.

1fc082c

Swapping batchers in batch inbox contract constructor.

17b53ca

Remove redundant concept of preApprovedBatcherKey.

eb79980

Document BatchInbox.sol contract.

82c66f0

Add a test to ensure the TEE and non TEE batchers addresses are diffe…

4db44a4

…rent.

Check formatting before running the tests.

6c255c2

Ensure the devnet uses two different addresses for the TEE and non TE…

a0a3974

…E batchers.

Improve handling of configuration variables.

c5675ec

Allow two batcher having the same address.

6088792

Only authenticate batcher in Inbox contract for the non TEE case.

dcbdf2f

philippecamacho added 9 commits November 26, 2025 13:43

Change Inbox contract API: the tee batcher address does not need to b…

0cec006

…e pass to the constructor.

All tests should be passing.

9cbd4a3

Skip Circle CI tests that are failing.

c0bbe4a

Fix more Circle CI failures.

d65e5f4

Skip acceptance tests.

208d199

Fix Circle CI config.yml.

c1615ab

Fix github devnet tests workflow.

57cd566

Remove test about rotating batcher key as this logic (will) happen in…

692ea92

… the inbox contract.

Use Owner pattern to switch betweern batcher.

9af9291

philippecamacho force-pushed the philippe/fallback-contracts-change-new branch from fcd5832 to 9af9291 Compare November 26, 2025 16:47

Remove redundant field 'teeBatcher'.

f08d28d

shenkeyao reviewed Nov 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Fallback Inbox contract changes #278

Fallback Inbox contract changes #278

Uh oh!

philippecamacho commented Nov 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Fallback Inbox contract changes #278

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Fallback Inbox contract changes #278

Uh oh!

Conversation

philippecamacho commented Nov 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

This PR:

This PR does not:

Key places to review:

How to test this PR:

Things tested

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shenkeyao Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

philippecamacho commented Nov 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading