feat: Gasless Meta Transactions

[0xrajath]

Motivation:

We need to add support for createActionBySig and also fix the user in castApprovalBySig and castDisapprovalBySig and add replay protection

Modifications:

• createActionBySig
• user check in castApprovalBySig and castDisapprovalBySig
• added reason in castApprovalBySig and castDisapprovalBySig
• createActionBySig test scaffold
• Using nonces for replay protection

Result:

Support for Gasless transactions. Closes #49

[0xrajath]

Do we have any worry of censorable signed messages similar to https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2612#security-considerations? Should we have some concept of a deadline similar to this for the signature functions?

[0xrajath]

As far as I can see there is no specific issue to being frontrun on these transactions here. If anyone thinks otherwise feel free to let me know what the issue might be.

[0xrajath]

Useful resources shared by @mds1 on telegram:

• https://github.com/dragonfly-xyz/useful-solidity-patterns/tree/main/patterns/eip712-signed-messages
• https://book.getfoundry.sh/tutorials/testing-eip712
• https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/bc6de21fe229520b33d13a4d60bbeb1bc5f91bcd/contracts/utils/cryptography/EIP712.sol
• also, permit is EIP-712 so you can check out the solmate ERC-20 permit tests for some examples too (https://github.com/transmissions11/solmate/blob/main/src/test/ERC20.t.sol)

[0xrajath]

Do we have any worry of censorable signed messages similar to https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2612#security-considerations? Should we have some concept of a deadline similar to this for the signature functions?

We have decided against using a deadline as it's unnecessary for the reasons listed here: ethereum/EIPs#2613

[0xrajath]

As far as I can see there is no specific issue to being frontrun on these transactions here. If anyone thinks otherwise feel free to let me know what the issue might be.

Confirmed that there is no speicific issue to being frontrun on these transactions here.

[github-actions]

Coverage after merging rajath/gasless-transactions-latest into main will be

88.82%

Coverage Report

File	Stmts	Branches	Funcs	Lines	Uncovered Lines
src
VertexAccount.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
VertexCore.sol	86.79%	85%	78.26%	89.15%	207, 230–231, 231, 231–232, 320, 333–334, 334, 334–335, 370, 385–386, 386, 386–387, 539, 611, 615, 619, 621
VertexFactory.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
VertexLens.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
VertexPolicy.sol	87.40%	77.78%	90%	88.61%	142, 185–186, 188, 240–241, 246, 251–252, 271, 327, 336, 374
VertexPolicyTokenURI.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
VertexStrategy.sol	97.96%	83.33%	100%	100%	178
src/lib
Checkpoints.sol	79.68%	72.22%	94.44%	80.87%	105, 204, 216–217, 258–260, 260, 260–261, 263, 266, 294–295, 333–335, 337–339, 341–343, 345–347, 349–351, 353–355, 361–362, 380, 389, 53
ERC721NonTransferableMinimalProxy.sol	72.46%	72.73%	72.73%	72.22%	102, 104, 106, 118, 190, 88, 88, 88, 90, 90, 90, 92, 92, 92, 97, 99

[dd0sxx]

Is there an issue to write test implementations? Looks good minus the lack of test coverage

[0xrajath]

Is there an issue to write test implementations? Looks good minus the lack of test coverage

Yup. Just created one: #222. I'm currently working on this. Will link it to this issue when I raise the PR.