feat: composite policies (UNION/INTERSECT) — interface, mock, and tests by rayyan224 · Pull Request #174 · base/base-std

rayyan224 · 2026-07-22T21:48:50Z

Summary

Adds composite-policy support to the policy registry: the IPolicyRegistry interface surface, the MockPolicyRegistry reference implementation, and the full unit-test suite. (Includes the mock implementation merged via #175.)

A composite policy combines existing simple policies (ALLOWLIST/BLOCKLIST) under a logic gate. The gate rides the policy ID's top byte, so composites need no separate type storage.

Interface (`IPolicyRegistry`)

PolicyType gains UNION (2) and INTERSECT (3). Append-only: leaf discriminants (BLOCKLIST=0, ALLOWLIST=1) are unchanged.
createCompositePolicy(address admin, PolicyType policyType, uint64[] childPolicyIds) — creates a UNION/INTERSECT over existing simple child policies. Children must exist and be simple (never a composite or a built-in sentinel); the child count must be in [2, 4].
updateComposite(uint64 policyId, uint64[] childPolicyIds) — full replace of the child set, re-validated exactly as at creation. The gate is fixed in the ID and cannot change.
isAuthorized — composites evaluate live over current child membership: UNION is OR (any child authorizes; empty → false), INTERSECT is AND (every child authorizes; empty → true).
Event: CompositePolicyUpdated(policyId, updater, childPolicyIds) — emitted on creation and every update, carrying the full post-update child set for single-log indexing. (Creation also emits the canonical PolicyCreated + PolicyAdminUpdated.)
Errors: ChildPoliciesOutsideOfRange(min, max) when the child count is outside [2, 4]; InvalidChildPolicy(childPolicyId) when a child is a built-in sentinel or a composite. Reuses PolicyNotFound / IncompatiblePolicyType / Unauthorized / ZeroAddress.

Mock implementation

MockPolicyRegistryStorage: adds a children mapping (uint64 => uint64[]) at layout offset 4 (offsets 0–3 unchanged) plus a childrenSlot helper for Rust slot-math parity.
MockPolicyRegistry: implements createCompositePolicy / updateComposite with the canonical revert precedence, and splits composite evaluation into _isAuthorizedUnion / _isAuthorizedIntersect. Child validation (_requireCreatedSimplePolicies) is two-pass so PolicyNotFound precedes InvalidChildPolicy.

Tests

test/unit/PolicyRegistry/: composite create/update (reverts + success), sequential revert-order walks, isAuthorized UNION/INTERSECT/mixed-child/live-membership semantics, and built-in-sentinel-child rejection.

Testing

forge test → 658 passed, 0 failed, 4 skipped (the 4 skipped are mock-only counter-overflow tests guarded by vm.skip(livePrecompiles)). forge fmt --check clean.

Generated with Claude Code

Interface-only proposal for composite policies on IPolicyRegistry: - Extend PolicyType with UNION and INTERSECT (append-only; leaf discriminants 0/1 unchanged, gate rides the policy ID top byte). - Add createCompositePolicy(admin, gate, operands) and updateCompositeOperands(policyId, operands). Update is a full-set overwrite (replace-all), re-validated as at creation. - Add CompositePolicyCreated and CompositeOperandsUpdated events, and EmptyOperandSet / InvalidOperand errors. - Note on createPolicy/createPolicyWithAccounts that composite gates revert IncompatiblePolicyType. Operands are flat-only (leaf ALLOWLIST/BLOCKLIST), capped at the composite operand limit, and the set may not be empty. This changes only the interface; MockPolicyRegistry and the Rust precompile implementation follow in a separate PR, so the mock will not compile against this interface until then. Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions · 2026-07-22T21:49:17Z

Interface Coverage

✅ All interface functions have test coverage.

github-actions · 2026-07-22T21:52:25Z

⚠️ Fork tests: 66 failed, 616 passed

These failures indicate divergences where base/base needs to catch up to the base-std spec. This check is advisory and does not block merging.

Failing tests

test_childrenSlot_success_locatesChildArray(uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x69fce77600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fc args=[252]
test_createCompositePolicy_revertOrder(uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x5fafe4f70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005 args=[5]
test_createCompositePolicy_revert_builtinChild(address,address,uint8): Error != expected error: custom error 0x6fdd1491 != InvalidChildPolicy(0); counterexample: calldata=0x87108a4b0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002a79000000000000000000000000cb00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000b args=[0x0000000000000000000000000000000000002A79, 0xCB00000000000000000000000000000000000000, 11]
test_createCompositePolicy_revert_childPoliciesOutsideOfRange(address,address,uint8,uint8): Error != expected error: custom error 0x6fdd1491 != ChildPoliciesOutsideOfRange(2, 4); counterexample: calldata=0xb84664360000000000000000000000008e680535dcf931f77699bd3b6153673c2ac1c6c200000000000000000000000055fcdaf4af29a37f81449755c352a9da32806a6400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009 args=[0x8E680535dCf931F77699BD3b6153673c2Ac1C6c2, 0x55fCdAF4Af29A37f81449755c352a9dA32806a64, 0, 9]
test_createCompositePolicy_revert_incompatiblePolicyType(address,address,uint8): Error != expected error: custom error 0x6fdd1491 != IncompatiblePolicyType(); counterexample: calldata=0x97326925000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000064e000000000000000000000000cb0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000b2 args=[0x000000000000000000000000000000000000064e, 0xCB00000000000000000000000000000000000000, 178]
test_createCompositePolicy_revert_invalidChildPolicy(address,address,uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x7416f45900000000000000000000000089e3498e886338c48ad5cbd349154366e287dab20000000000000000000000003442c83de28e0ad8edc573189fcfcd89ec8f00680000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000029 args=[0x89e3498e886338C48ad5cBd349154366e287DAb2, 0x3442c83dE28E0ad8eDC573189FCfCD89ec8f0068, 41]
test_createCompositePolicy_revert_policyNotFound(address,address,uint8,uint64): Error != expected error: custom error 0x6fdd1491 != PolicyNotFound(); counterexample: calldata=0x1803f6050000000000000000000000008d3bba4001b2945da7f411851983a0409f6592fb0000000000000000000000001673c0d17190c95ef0e26ea23719d072ffb2188600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fc0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000c47744128ec688d args=[0x8d3BBa4001B2945da7F411851983A0409F6592Fb, 0x1673C0d17190C95Ef0e26eA23719D072Ffb21886, 252, 884803675009869965 [8.848e17]]
test_createCompositePolicy_revert_zeroAdmin(address,uint8): Error != expected error: custom error 0x6fdd1491 != ZeroAddress(); counterexample: calldata=0xb18b5cb1000000000000000000000000517bfc853b94ea7e74a8b11f567348b4d953e4ee0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000053 args=[0x517bfC853b94EA7e74a8B11f567348B4d953E4ee, 83]
test_createCompositePolicy_success_advancesNextPolicyId(address,uint8,uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0xf9a1ca7700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000f200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000670000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010 args=[0x00000000000000000000000000000000000000F2, 103, 16]
test_createCompositePolicy_success_atMaxChildren(address,address,uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x296e3341000000000000000000000000ae50efe37da2c2f8e2d92323e58a38aa4b33604e0000000000000000000000000980c79bd18fedf7e9ef0e503d1806f72ec972c70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 args=[0xae50eFE37Da2C2F8e2D92323E58a38AA4b33604e, 0x0980c79BD18FEdf7e9ef0e503D1806F72ec972C7, 0]
test_createCompositePolicy_success_emitsCompositePolicyUpdated(address,address,uint8): log != expected log; counterexample: calldata=0x1694cfe0000000000000000000000000b69e1fa1b3cb46f475a82ac1e266309ce2ccea4f000000000000000000000000c9da5453b191acdf54e6e5f7e4f52962085e2f9a0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 args=[0xB69e1FA1b3cb46F475A82Ac1e266309CE2CCea4f, 0xC9dA5453B191Acdf54E6e5F7E4F52962085e2F9A, 3]
test_createCompositePolicy_success_emitsInitialPolicyAdminUpdated(address,address,uint8): log != expected log; counterexample: calldata=0xd6a6c2b2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000dec700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000042250000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000004 args=[0x000000000000000000000000000000000000deC7, 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000004225, 4]
test_createCompositePolicy_success_emitsPolicyCreated(address,address,uint8): log != expected log; counterexample: calldata=0x8903116500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007e200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000043fc000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005f args=[0x00000000000000000000000000000000000007E2, 0x00000000000000000000000000000000000043Fc, 95]
test_createCompositePolicy_success_intersect(address,address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0xccbe0bd400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000044690000000000000000000000008453000000000000000000000000000000000002 args=[0x0000000000000000000000000000000000004469, 0x8453000000000000000000000000000000000002]
test_createCompositePolicy_success_union(address,address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0xd748b1fe00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000040f700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000040f6 args=[0x00000000000000000000000000000000000040F7, 0x00000000000000000000000000000000000040F6]
test_isAuthorized_success_composite_mixedChildTypes(address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0xca56e88d00000000000000000000000062a9494189e58fa5d7c2c3c0dd976a56e96fc006 args=[0x62a9494189e58Fa5d7c2C3c0DD976a56e96fC006]
test_isAuthorized_success_composite_reflectsChildMembershipChange(address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x9154ecaf000000000000000000000000d154c028cc9bf8a153680968595ec2b1b24d853e args=[0xd154C028cC9bF8a153680968595EC2b1b24D853E]
test_isAuthorized_success_intersect_allChildrenAuthorize(address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x12f37cef00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010d4 args=[0x00000000000000000000000000000000000010D4]
test_isAuthorized_success_intersect_oneChildDenies(address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x70fa07e6000000000000000000000000a5a4e4e727605a42e44b91bf0256cd22eb1138b4 args=[0xA5A4e4E727605A42e44b91bf0256CD22Eb1138B4]
test_isAuthorized_success_union_anyChildAuthorizes(address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x1ab541130000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001896 args=[0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001896]
test_isAuthorized_success_union_noChildAuthorizes(address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x18ea2b87000000000000000000000000e396a2c5a7f126f03954a9029fd63aadf7789fd8 args=[0xe396a2C5A7F126f03954A9029Fd63AaDf7789Fd8]
test_updateComposite_revertOrder(uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x46b240f900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000e4 args=[228]
test_updateComposite_revert_builtinChild(uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x44e9729e0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 args=[0]
test_updateComposite_revert_childPoliciesOutsideOfRange(uint8,uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x25c4476000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fd0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 args=[253, 0]
test_updateComposite_revert_incompatiblePolicyType(uint8): Error != expected error: custom error 0xbfe142c0 != IncompatiblePolicyType(); counterexample: calldata=0xbe9d9a400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002 args=[2]
test_updateComposite_revert_invalidChildPolicy(uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0xfc6d02c6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003e args=[62]
test_updateComposite_revert_policyNotFound(address,uint64): Error != expected error: custom error 0xbfe142c0 != PolicyNotFound(); counterexample: calldata=0xbc492f7a0000000000000000000000009c7a02bdec4cd520f1ce24ab64984454d6433c1c000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fffffffffffffffc args=[0x9c7A02BdeC4cd520F1cE24AB64984454d6433C1c, 18446744073709551612 [1.844e19]]
test_updateComposite_revert_policyNotFoundChild(uint8,uint64): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x5d96e02c00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000040000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000075258c82 args=[4, 1965395074 [1.965e9]]
test_updateComposite_revert_renouncedComposite(uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x9c795a420000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 args=[1]
test_updateComposite_revert_unauthorized(address,uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x13f7deab000000000000000000000000de35ade08cbdb6092540953156d3a51345cfb73d0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000025 args=[0xDe35AdE08cbdb6092540953156d3a51345CfB73D, 37]
test_updateComposite_success_atMaxChildren(uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0x9b8e06050000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 args=[0]
test_updateComposite_success_emitsCompositePolicyUpdated(uint8): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0xc975d54c0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000049 args=[73]
test_updateComposite_success_replacesChildSet(address): custom error 0x6fdd1491; counterexample: calldata=0xbb149933000000000000000000000000e27eac788a7e2e24a763d70aa00be46fcd3b1445 args=[0xe27EaC788A7e2E24a763D70aa00Be46FCD3b1445]

rayyan224 · 2026-07-22T21:57:01Z

    function createPolicy(address admin, PolicyType policyType) external returns (uint64 newPolicyId);

-    /// @notice Creates a new policy seeded with `accounts` as initial members. Permissionless.
+    /// @notice Creates a new leaf policy seeded with `accounts` as initial members. Permissionless.


Remove leaf here

Drop the "not an incremental edit" binary contrast and the "silently" adverb; make the flat-only note active. Wording only, no signature or behavior change. Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

ilikesymmetry · 2026-07-22T22:35:37Z


+    /// @notice A composite policy (UNION or INTERSECT) was created over `operands`.
+    event CompositePolicyCreated(
+        uint64 indexed policyId, address indexed creator, PolicyType policyType, uint64[] operands


feel like I want to see the clarification of "policy" in there

Suggested change

uint64 indexed policyId, address indexed creator, PolicyType policyType, uint64[] operands

uint64 indexed policyId, address indexed creator, PolicyType policyType, uint64[] operandPolicies

Do we even need this event? Why not just use PolicyCreated as-is and then combine with the event below for declaring operand policies updated?

I think we can use policy created. Only thing is I would assume a user want's an event that lists the new childPolicyIds for the composite, when a policy is created / updated.

The existing PolicyCreated event does declare the policy type so I think your goal is met as-is

But it wouldn't solve the event that the user can see the new childPoloicyId's

Updated to PolicyCreated, and a UpdateCompositePolicyEvent both being emitted

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

Co-authored-by: Conner Swenberg <conner.swenberg@coinbase.com>

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

Co-authored-by: Conner Swenberg <conner.swenberg@coinbase.com>

ilikesymmetry · 2026-07-23T17:07:16Z

+    /// @notice A composite policy (UNION or INTERSECT) was created over `childPolicyIds`.
+    event CompositePolicyCreated(
+        uint64 indexed policyId, address indexed creator, PolicyType policyType, uint64[] childPolicyIds
+    );


Seems to ignore discussion here: #174 (comment).

As we keep adding policy types with more nuance, we'll continually run up against the desire to have custom created events that have all of the content of PolicyCreated, but with a new field(s). I think we should take the opinionated stance that we have one canonical creation event (PolicyCreated) and we use *Updated events for the type-specific field(s). This gives indexers the cleanest experience where this is only one path for creation to look at ever and only one path for field updates to look at (regardless of creation/update).

Suggested change

/// @notice A composite policy (UNION or INTERSECT) was created over `childPolicyIds`.

event CompositePolicyCreated(

uint64 indexed policyId, address indexed creator, PolicyType policyType, uint64[] childPolicyIds

);

So the create function fires two events fires two events, Created and UpdatePolicy ?

Use the canonical PolicyCreated event for every policy type and surface composite child policies via CompositePolicyUpdated (now emitted on both creation and update). Gives indexers one creation path and one per-field update path. Addresses PR #174 review. Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

stevieraykatz · 2026-07-23T20:24:35Z

+    /// @dev Reverts with `PolicyNotFound` when any child policy does not exist.
+    /// @dev Reverts with `InvalidChildPolicy` when any child policy is itself a composite
+    ///      (not a simple policy).
+    /// @dev Panics with arithmetic overflow (Panic 0x11) when the policy counter has reached its maximum value.


Aren't we going to explicitly check that 2 < childPolicyIds <= 4? What risk is there of overflow?

They share the create counter which can overflow

oooh for the global policy id. i don't think this needs explicit callout here...

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

…com/base/base-std into composite-policy-interface-proposal

ilikesymmetry · 2026-07-24T17:52:47Z

+    /// @dev Reverts with `TooFewChildPolicies` when `childPolicyIds.length < 2`; there is no clear-the-list path.
+    /// @dev Reverts with `BatchSizeTooLarge(4)` when `childPolicyIds.length > 4`


asymmetry of these events feels weird, feels like we should do one OutsideAllowedChildPoliciesRange(received, min, max) or similar

* feat: create composite polocies * feat: create mock polocy * test: reject built-in sentinels as composite children Add tests asserting createCompositePolicy and updateComposite revert InvalidChildPolicy when a child is a built-in sentinel (ALWAYS_ALLOW_ID / ALWAYS_BLOCK_ID), and align the IPolicyRegistry natspec accordingly. Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> * style: forge fmt Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> * refactor: replace composite count errors with ChildPoliciesOutsideOfRange Collapse the TooFewChildPolicies (< 2) and BatchSizeTooLarge(4) (> 4) composite child-count checks into a single ChildPoliciesOutsideOfRange(min, max) error reverting with (2, 4). Remove the now-unused TooFewChildPolicies error; BatchSizeTooLarge is retained for account-membership batches. Add MIN_CHILD_POLICIES and update the composite tests + revert-order walks accordingly. Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions · 2026-07-24T19:56:00Z

📊 Forge Coverage (`src/lib/`)

🟡 ≥95% across all metrics — some metrics below 99%.

File	Lines	Stmts	Branches	Funcs
🟢 B20FactoryLib.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
🔴 test/lib/ForceFeeder.sol	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%
🔴 test/lib/PrecompileProbe.sol	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
🟢 MockActivationRegistry.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
🟢 MockActivationRegistryStorage.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
🟢 MockB20.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
🟢 MockB20Asset.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
🟡 MockB20Factory.sol	98.96%	99.10%	100.00%	100.00%
🟢 MockB20Stablecoin.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
🟢 MockB20Storage.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
🟢 MockPolicyRegistry.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
🟢 MockPolicyRegistryStorage.sol	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Total	96.90%	97.48%	98.53%	97.04%

Full report: download artifact. To browse locally: make coverage (runs forge coverage + genhtml + opens the HTML report).

The Interface Coverage CI check flags any test/lib/mocks function with zero test hits. childrenSlot / childrenBaseSlot were added for the composite child set but never exercised. Add a slot-helper test that reads a composite's child array via childrenSlot, matching the existing slot-helper test pattern. Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

robriks · 2026-07-24T20:57:47Z

    ///
    /// @dev Reverts with `ZeroAddress` when `admin` is `address(0)`.
-    /// @dev Panics with arithmetic overflow (Panic 0x11) when the policy counter has reached its maximum value.
+    /// @dev Reverts with `IncompatiblePolicyType` when `policyType` is a composite gate.


createPolicy and createPolicyWithAccounts have natspec mentioning that they revert for composite policy types, but it looks like

policyRegistry.createPolicy(admin, PolicyType.UNION); // does not revert, creating a UNION with 0 children policyRegistry.createPolicy(admin, PolicyType.INTERSECT); // isAuthorized(id, anyAddr) == true policyRegistry.createPolicyWithAccounts(admin, PolicyType.UNION, accts); // does not revert

don't revert as documented

Oh yep nice catch

rayyan224 commented Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Tighten composite NatSpec wording

e685897

Drop the "not an incremental edit" binary contrast and the "silently" adverb; make the flat-only note active. Wording only, no signature or behavior change. Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

ilikesymmetry reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

ilikesymmetry reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

ilikesymmetry reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

rayyan224 and others added 8 commits July 23, 2026 10:08

Apply suggestion from @stevieraykatz

0c29a7e

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

Apply suggestion from @ilikesymmetry

5c14492

Co-authored-by: Conner Swenberg <conner.swenberg@coinbase.com>

Apply suggestion from @stevieraykatz

0f599ad

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

Apply suggestion from @ilikesymmetry

57e6caa

Co-authored-by: Conner Swenberg <conner.swenberg@coinbase.com>

feat: poloicy registry

2594d62

feaet: more clean up

6f30915

chore: clean up

bc683b1

feat: rename to simple

35e816a

rayyan224 requested review from ilikesymmetry and stevieraykatz July 23, 2026 17:10

chore: clean up

fe6710a

ilikesymmetry requested changes Jul 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

ilikesymmetry reviewed Jul 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

rayyan224 and others added 3 commits July 23, 2026 15:24

chore: update error types

0682ec3

feat: update policy registry

050a4b0

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

stevieraykatz reviewed Jul 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/interfaces/IPolicyRegistry.sol Outdated

rayyan224 and others added 6 commits July 23, 2026 16:28

Apply suggestion from @stevieraykatz

2bd24c2

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

Apply suggestion from @stevieraykatz

03230f2

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

Apply suggestion from @stevieraykatz

500e269

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

Apply suggestion from @stevieraykatz

14c9bb5

Co-authored-by: katzman <steve.katzman@coinbase.com>

feat: policy registry

aa0dc53

Merge branch 'composite-policy-interface-proposal' of https://github.…

ffc3105

…com/base/base-std into composite-policy-interface-proposal

rayyan224 requested a review from stevieraykatz July 23, 2026 20:37

chore: clean up

fb594b2

ilikesymmetry reviewed Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

rayyan224 requested a review from ilikesymmetry July 24, 2026 19:54

rayyan224 marked this pull request as ready for review July 24, 2026 19:55

rayyan224 requested review from amiecorso and eric-ships as code owners July 24, 2026 19:55

rayyan224 changed the title ~~Propose composite policy interface (UNION/INTERSECT)~~ feat: composite policies (UNION/INTERSECT) — interface, mock, and tests Jul 24, 2026

rayyan224 requested review from robriks and stephancill July 24, 2026 20:31

stephancill approved these changes Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

rayyan224 merged commit 6fc07aa into main Jul 24, 2026
10 checks passed

rayyan224 deleted the composite-policy-interface-proposal branch July 24, 2026 20:46

robriks reviewed Jul 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

rayyan224 mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2026

fix: reject composite policyType in createPolicy / createPolicyWithAccounts #176

Open

	uint64 indexed policyId, address indexed creator, PolicyType policyType, uint64[] operands
	uint64 indexed policyId, address indexed creator, PolicyType policyType, uint64[] operandPolicies

		/// @dev Reverts with `TooFewChildPolicies` when `childPolicyIds.length < 2`; there is no clear-the-list path.
		/// @dev Reverts with `BatchSizeTooLarge(4)` when `childPolicyIds.length > 4`

Uh oh!

Conversation

rayyan224 commented Jul 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Interface (IPolicyRegistry)

Mock implementation

Tests

Testing

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Interface Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

⚠️ Fork tests: 66 failed, 616 passed

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rayyan224 Jul 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rayyan224 Jul 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

📊 Forge Coverage (src/lib/)

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

robriks Jul 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

rayyan224 commented Jul 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Interface (`IPolicyRegistry`)

github-actions Bot commented Jul 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Jul 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rayyan224 Jul 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rayyan224 Jul 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

📊 Forge Coverage (`src/lib/`)

robriks Jul 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading