safe-global / safe-modules / 9890531912 / 1

100%

master: 85%

push

github

Add User Story for Computing Safe Address (#463)

This PR partially addresses the comment
https://github.com/safe-global/safe-modules/pull/456#discussion_r1666935429
(cc @mmv08).

In doing some exploration around event indexing, I found that we don't
really have a good developer story for it. There are two separate
passkey flows, so I will address them separately.

### Proxy + Factory Signer

The flow specific to using the `SafeWebAuthnSignerFactory` contract to
deploy a credential-specific WebAuthn credential owner requires a
service for indexing Safe owners in order to properly search Safes that
are owned by a specific credential. While the WebAuthn credential signer
address can be deterministically computed (see
`signerFactory.getSigner(...)` function), it does not allow for us to
search for all Safes that use this signer. This is because there are
multiple events that affect the `owners` list for a Safe (`Setup`,
`Owner*`), and specifically owners added during `setup` do not emit any
event indexed by owner address, meaning you would have to check all
`Setup` events for all Safes in order to determine which Safes use the
specific WebAuthn credential signer.

There is, however, support for this in the [transaction service
API](https://docs.safe.global/core-api/transaction-service-reference#Owners).
So, right now, it should be possible to find all Safes owned by a
WebAuthn credential by implementing something like:

```ts
const signerAddress = await signerFactory.getSigner(x, y, verifiers);
const safes = await safeTransactionServiceClient.getOwnerSafes(signerAddress);
```

However, this requires an API service to do this, and cannot be done
alone with events.

### Shared Signer

The flow specific to using the `SafeWebAuthnSharedSigner` contract
suffers from the same issues as the other flow, in that finding Safes by
owner is not really possible with events. Compounding on top of this,
the transaction service A... (continued)

28 of 28 branches covered (100.0%)

Branch coverage included in aggregate %.

92 of 92 relevant lines covered (100.0%)

30.29 hits per line