Draft: Adapting contracts for zksync os v30

[StanislavBreadless]

What ❔

This PR makes L2 contracts compatible with ZKsync OS design.
Basically, it means mostly two things

• No immutables in L2 contracts.
• No constructors in L2 contracts.

Effectively we split many contracts into L1 and L2 versions, where L2 version doesn't have constructor (instead, it has an initL2 function), and has no immutables.

Why ❔

Checklist

• PR title corresponds to the body of PR (we generate changelog entries from PRs).
• Tests for the changes have been added / updated.
• Documentation comments have been added / updated.

[github-actions]

Coverage after merging sb-adapting-contracts-for-zksync-os-v30 into draft-v30 will be

80.25%

Coverage Report

File	Stmts	Branches	Funcs	Lines	Uncovered Lines
contracts/bridge
BridgeHelper.sol	85.71%	100%	100%	85%	31, 36, 41
BridgedStandardERC20.sol	82.14%	100%	92.31%	80.28%	120–121, 126–127, 139–140, 164, 205, 212, 219, 229–230, 63, 91
L1ERC20Bridge.sol	94%	100%	100%	93.02%	189, 208, 270
L1Nullifier.sol	83.33%	100%	86.21%	82.89%	114, 128–130, 160, 221, 224, 234, 237, 247, 250, 418–420, 424–425, 452, 518, 602, 614, 652, 654, 698, 710, 713, 715, 728, 741–742, 746–747, 767
contracts/bridge/asset-router
AssetRouterBase.sol	94.87%	100%	100%	93.75%	60, 80
L1AssetRouter.sol	84.54%	100%	80.65%	85.28%	216, 254, 270, 357, 368, 399, 438–439, 453, 484, 556, 645, 656, 66, 670, 675, 685–686, 693–694, 697–698, 82, 90
contracts/bridge/interfaces
AssetHandlerModifiers.sol	75%	100%	100%	66.67%	13
contracts/bridge/ntv
L1NativeTokenVault.sol	84.62%	100%	86.36%	84.26%	146–152, 154, 222–223, 225, 236, 238, 242, 320–321, 68
NativeTokenVault.sol	89.08%	100%	91.67%	88.67%	210, 215, 232, 250, 255, 271, 290, 298, 464, 479, 507, 540–541, 545–546, 62, 78
UpgradeableBeaconDeployer.sol	0%	100%	0%	0%	15–16, 18, 20–21
contracts/bridgehub
BridgehubBase.sol	83.99%	100%	86.67%	83.52%	139, 148, 156, 161–163, 170, 188, 233–234, 242, 245, 254, 264, 277, 292, 321, 345, 348, 407, 423, 454, 534, 714, 718, 722–723, 742, 745, 796, 799, 802, 837, 841, 844, 879–880, 884–885, 893–894, 898–899
CTMDeploymentTracker.sol	73.47%	100%	81.82%	71.05%	106, 110, 114, 139, 143–144, 32, 40, 65, 78–79
ChainAssetHandlerBase.sol	73.68%	100%	75%	73.47%	105, 119, 122, 132, 177, 225–226, 230–231, 57, 64–65, 73
L1Bridgehub.sol	76.92%	100%	71.43%	78.95%	29–30, 67–68
L1ChainAssetHandler.sol	77.78%	100%	71.43%	80%	37–38, 46–47
L1MessageRoot.sol	80%	100%	75%	81.82%	43–44
L2Bridgehub.sol	75%	100%	60%	80%	48–49, 73
L2ChainAssetHandler.sol	80.65%	100%	75%	82.61%	49–50, 68, 92
L2MessageRoot.sol	28.57%	100%	40%	26.09%	38–39, 43–44, 60, 66–67, 71, 73, 75, 78–79, 81, 85–88
L2MessageVerification.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
MessageRootBase.sol	57.38%	100%	66.67%	55.10%	103–105, 111–113, 121, 130, 136, 148, 158, 163–168, 170–174
contracts/common
ReentrancyGuard.sol	95%	100%	100%	94.12%	79
contracts/common/l2-helpers
L2ContractHelper.sol	84.91%	100%	100%	82.22%	102, 108, 112, 129, 134, 73, 79, 83
SystemContractsCaller.sol	0%	100%	0%	0%	102, 114, 122–125, 128, 135–139, 141–142, 32–34, 37, 44–45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 83, 89, 91, 93, 96, 98
contracts/common/libraries
DataEncoding.sol	85.11%	100%	100%	81.58%	109–110, 117–118, 163, 177, 45
DynamicIncrementalMerkle.sol	73.91%	100%	80%	73.17%	66–70, 72–74, 76–78
FullMerkle.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
Merkle.sol	98.15%	100%	100%	97.96%	83
MessageHashing.sol	95.16%	100%	100%	94.64%	113, 77, 94
SemVer.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
UncheckedMath.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
UnsafeBytes.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
contracts/governance
AccessControlRestriction.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
ChainAdmin.sol	97.87%	100%	100%	97.30%	39
ChainAdminOwnable.sol	44.83%	100%	40%	45.83%	28, 38–40, 46–48, 57, 66, 77–79, 81
Governance.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
L2ProxyAdminDeployer.sol	0%	100%	0%	0%	16–18, 20
PermanentRestriction.sol	88.80%	100%	100%	87.39%	103, 110–111, 199–200, 203–204, 207, 209–210, 239, 287, 309, 340
ServerNotifier.sol	93.10%	100%	100%	90.91%	55, 65
TransitionaryOwner.sol	0%	100%	0%	0%	16–17, 21–23
contracts/governance/restriction
Restriction.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
RestrictionValidator.sol	100%	100%	100%	100%
contracts/l2-upgrades
L2ComplexUpgrader.sol	0%	100%	0%	0%	23, 25–26, 40, 45, 47, 57, 63–64, 71, 80–82, 85, 87–88
L2GenesisForceDeploymentsHelper.sol	0%	100%	0%	0%	101, 108–109, 112–114, 120, 128, 132, 137, 139, 149, 158, 161, 166, 176, 178–179, 182, 185, 191, 195, 199, 210, 219, 224, 226, 234, 245, 259, 265, 285, 293–294, 297–298, 300, 307, 313, 33–35, 37, 45, 48–49, 54, 60–62, 70–72, 74, 84, 92, 96
L2GenesisUpgrade.sol	0%	100%	0%	0%	24, 31–32, 37–38, 42, 50
contracts/state-transition
AccessControlEnumerablePerChainAddressUpgradeable.sol	98.15%	100%	100%	97.67%	179
ChainTypeManager.sol	85.93%	100%	84.62%	86.25%	111, 123, 129, 137–138, 245–248, 261–264, 279, 409, 471, 499,

[StanislavBreadless]

this is not directly related to this line, but we need to select which Verifier to deploy based on whether we use zksync os

[0xValera]

Do you mean due to different VKs being used?
But there are no changes required in scripts, right? The verifiers which are to be deployed will be based on the repo where we're running the script in, no?

[0xValera]

Discussed.
TLDR:
We want to have one branch for both Era and ZKsync OS. For that we must have both Era and ZKsync OS verifiers in repo, with respective VKs. Depending on flag whether we're deploying Era or ZKsync OS we'll be deploying their verifier.