chore: Use chains native address format for DepositAddress Withdrawal flow#3400
chore: Use chains native address format for DepositAddress Withdrawal flow#3400dijanin-brat wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
dijanin-brat
requested review from
bmzig,
mrice32,
nicholaspai and
pxrl
as code owners
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5b01eb2e63
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| expect(toAddressType(normalized.routeParams.refundAddress, originChainId).toNative()).to.equal( | ||
| raw.routeParams.refundAddress | ||
| ); | ||
| expect( | ||
| toAddressType(normalized.counterfactualMaterials.withdrawLeaf.implementationAddress, originChainId).toNative() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new withdraw-focused test still calls toAddressType(..., originChainId) for signed-withdraw fields, so it won’t fail when originChainId and erc20Transfer.chainId differ (the exact mis_route/intent_refund case this change targets). That means a regression in refund-chain formatting for user/withdrawImplementation could slip through despite this test passing; these assertions should use refundChainId to validate the behavior being introduced.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
No description provided.