Add Multicall module#2608
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Amxx
reviewed
Mar 23, 2021
Amxx
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code looks good to me.
You could shorten it even more by doing :
results[i] = Address.functionDelegateCall(address(this), data[i]);
Depending on how solidity does optimization, that might even save a memory copy.
Next we'll need tests and documentation
Collaborator
|
For the record: https://github.com/Uniswap/uniswap-v3-periphery/blob/main/contracts/base/Multicall.sol |
Contributor
Author
|
Doing some quick tests: // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
pragma solidity 0.8.0;
pragma abicoder v2;
import "./ERC20Mock.sol";
/// @title Multicall
/// @notice Enables calling multiple methods in a single call to the contract
abstract contract Multicall {
function multicall(bytes[] calldata data) external payable returns (bytes[] memory results) {
results = new bytes[](data.length);
for (uint256 i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
(bool success, bytes memory result) = address(this).delegatecall(data[i]);
if (!success) {
// Next 5 lines from https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/83577
if (result.length < 68) revert();
assembly {
result := add(result, 0x04)
}
revert(abi.decode(result, (string)));
}
results[i] = result;
}
}
}
contract UniswapMultiCallTokenMock is ERC20Mock, Multicall {
constructor (uint256 initialBalance) ERC20Mock("BatchCallToken", "BCT", msg.sender, initialBalance) {}
}v.s. // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
import "../utils/BatchCall.sol";
import "./ERC20Mock.sol";
contract BatchCallTokenMock is ERC20Mock, BatchCall {
constructor (uint256 initialBalance) ERC20Mock("BatchCallToken", "BCT", msg.sender, initialBalance) {}
}results in |
Collaborator
This shows that, without optimisation, uniswap multicall is more expensive to deploy by about 20k gas, but less expensive to use.. doing |
frangio
reviewed
Mar 26, 2021
Contributor
Author
|
Should I switch to their implementation? |
Contributor
|
The additional cost is probably that we are calling |
frangio
reviewed
Mar 27, 2021
frangio
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Other than my suggestions for testing this looks good.
Amxx
previously approved these changes
Mar 30, 2021
Amxx
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All this looks good to me, I'd personally go with uniswap implementation if that can save some gas, or do a manual try-catch block ... but that is not a strong opinion.
Contributor
Author
|
Linking @Amxx's |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #2558