Add support to entrypoint v0.07 useroperations #2692

sherifahmed990 · 2025-10-30T13:44:28Z

Make sure these boxes are checked! 📦✅

[✅] You ran ./run_tests.sh
[✅] You ran pre-commit run -a

What was wrong? 👾

This draft pr adds support to entrypoint v0.07 useroperations.
I wanted to get an approval about the structure of the pr, for the following:
1- Adding more fields to the useroperation table instead of creating a new table.
2-Creating a modified version of UserOperationV7 instead of UserOperationV07 to allow for optional factory, factory_data and adding init_code property method.
3- Creating a modified version of SafeOperation to override from_user_operation.

then I will add tests for v0.07 useroperations

@Uxio0

Note

Adds EntryPoint v0.7 support across Account Abstraction, while keeping v0.6 compatibility and gating by ETHEREUM_4337_SUPPORTED_ENTRY_POINTS.

Settings: Define ETHEREUM_4337_ENTRYPOINT_V6/V7 and Safe module addresses; default-support both via ETHEREUM_4337_SUPPORTED_ENTRY_POINTS and ETHEREUM_4337_SUPPORTED_SAFE_MODULES.
DB/Models: Extend UserOperation with v0.7 fields (factory, factory_data, paymaster_verification_gas_limit, paymaster_post_op_gas_limit) and add constraints; to_user_operation now returns UserOperationV6 or UserOperationV7 based on entry_point.
Serializers: Request/response serializers validate version-specific fields and module address compatibility; build the appropriate UserOperation (v6/v7); response strips non-applicable fields; confirmations decode init data from v7 (factory+factory_data) when present.
Processor Service: Only index user operations whose entry_point is in supported_entry_points; persist v7-specific fields when indexing; remove blanket v0.7 rejection.
Migrations/Tests: New migration for schema changes and tests ensuring v0.7 ops are ignored when not configured as supported.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit c2e4b16. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

…cept UserOperationV7

…n_entrypoint_V07

Uxio0 · 2025-11-04T13:25:22Z

config/settings/base.py

+SAFE_4337_MODULE_ADDRESS_V06 = "0xa581c4A4DB7175302464fF3C06380BC3270b4037"
+SAFE_4337_MODULE_ADDRESS_V07 = "0x75cf11467937ce3F2f357CE24ffc3DBF8fD5c226"


Being picky:

Suggested change

SAFE_4337_MODULE_ADDRESS_V06 = "0xa581c4A4DB7175302464fF3C06380BC3270b4037"

SAFE_4337_MODULE_ADDRESS_V07 = "0x75cf11467937ce3F2f357CE24ffc3DBF8fD5c226"

ETHEREUM_4337_SAFE_MODULE_ADDRESS_V06 = "0xa581c4A4DB7175302464fF3C06380BC3270b4037"

ETHEREUM_4337_SAFE_MODULE_ADDRESS_V07 = "0x75cf11467937ce3F2f357CE24ffc3DBF8fD5c226"

So all the settings related to 4337 start the same.

Also hardcoding shouldn't be done, it needs to be defined using environment configuration variables as the other configuration (using env.str)

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/models.py

Uxio0 · 2025-11-04T13:31:35Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/models.py

+                user_operation_metadata,
+            )
+        else:
+            raise ValueError("Unsupported entrypoint")


Do entrypoints have the same address for every network? Remember that we run tx service for a lot of different networks, and it needs to be compatible with them.

There's no other way to tell appart v6 from v7? I would prefer to check a field that exists on v7 and not on v6, for example. Checking entrypoint address is a good solution for your use case, but not for the service

All the 4337 tooling that i know of assumes the official entrypoints addresses.
eth-infinitism/account-abstraction#372 (comment)
I think it is safe to only support the official entrypoints addresses.

Because we are using the same class for both useroperation types, a useroperation without init/factory and without paymaster would be identical for both v6 and v7(except for the entrypoint address).
Also v7, v8 and v9 have the same useroperation structure.
So i think using the entrypoint address is the only option with the current structure.
I added some model constrains as sanity checks to verify that some values should be none for each useroperation type, i can repeat these sanity checks here too.

Uxio0 · 2025-11-04T13:33:47Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/SafeOperation.py

+from safe_eth.eth.utils import fast_keccak
+from safe_eth.safe.account_abstraction import SafeOperation as SafeOperationClass
+
+from safe_transaction_service.account_abstraction.UserOperationV7 import UserOperationV7


UserOperationV7 should be part of safe-eth-py. I understand for a draft is ok to be here, but for the merge both classes should be together in safe-eth-py (I will review that PR, just let me know 😃 )

Uxio0 · 2025-11-04T13:37:26Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/constants.py

+ENTRYPOINT_V6 = "0x5FF137D4b0FDCD49DcA30c7CF57E578a026d2789"
+ENTRYPOINT_V7 = "0x0000000071727De22E5E9d8BAf0edAc6f37da032"


No hardcoding, read this from base.py

Uxio0 · 2025-11-04T13:40:54Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/serializers.py


+        entry_point = attrs["entry_point"]
+        module_address = attrs["module_address"]
+        is_v7 = entry_point.lower() == ENTRYPOINT_V7.lower()


Again, please don't use entrypoint address and find another alternative like fields even if it's not so "correct"

Both useroperation types use the same class, so they can be identical(except for the entrypoint address). I can add some sanity checks.

Uxio0 · 2025-11-04T13:42:06Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/serializers.py

-            self.validated_data["entry_point"],
-        )
+        entry_point = self.validated_data["entry_point"]
+        is_v7 = entry_point.lower() == ENTRYPOINT_V7.lower()


Uxio0 · 2025-11-04T13:43:24Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/serializers.py

+        # Remove version-specific fields based on entrypoint
+        data = super().to_representation(instance)
+
+        is_v7 = instance.entry_point.lower() == ENTRYPOINT_V7.lower()


Same. Also, I see this comparison in a lot of places. Maybe it can be refactored to a util function like "def is_v7(...) -> bool`

Uxio0 · 2025-11-04T13:44:04Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/services/aa_processor_service.py

 from ..models import SafeOperationConfirmation as SafeOperationConfirmationModel
 from ..models import UserOperation as UserOperationModel
 from ..models import UserOperationReceipt as UserOperationReceiptModel
+from ..SafeOperation import SafeOperation


filenames and packages should be snake case in Python

sherifahmed990 · 2025-11-05T12:24:28Z

Thank you for taking the time to review this pr.
I will first create a pr in the safe-eth-py for the "SafeOperation" class and the "UserOperationV07" class.
Then I will continue with this pr.

Co-authored-by: Uxío <[email protected]>

…rom mock_bundler

sherifahmed990 · 2025-12-12T04:35:56Z

some tests are failing, not sure if these are related to this pr or due to compatibility with safe-eth-py 7.17.0

cursor

This PR is being reviewed by Cursor Bugbot

Details

Your team is on the Bugbot Free tier. On this plan, Bugbot will review limited PRs each billing cycle for each member of your team.

To receive Bugbot reviews on all of your PRs, visit the Cursor dashboard to activate Pro and start your 14-day free trial.

cursor · 2026-01-05T18:38:28Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/serializers.py

+                self.validated_data["paymaster_verification_gas_limit"],
+                self.validated_data["paymaster_post_op_gas_limit"],
+                self.validated_data["paymaster"],
+                self.validated_data.get["paymaster_data"] or b"",


Method call syntax error using brackets instead of parentheses

The code uses self.validated_data.get["paymaster_data"] with square brackets instead of parentheses. This attempts to subscript the .get method rather than calling it, causing a TypeError at runtime when saving v7 user operations. The correct syntax is self.validated_data.get("paymaster_data").

@sherifahmed990 sorry for the delay, as I was on holidays. Could you take a look at this bug?

cursor · 2026-01-05T18:38:29Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/serializers.py

+                self.validated_data["factory_data"] or b"",
+                self.validated_data["paymaster_verification_gas_limit"],
+                self.validated_data["paymaster_post_op_gas_limit"],
+                self.validated_data["paymaster"],


Missing paymaster field causes KeyError for v7 operations

The code accesses self.validated_data["paymaster"] but SafeOperationSerializer does not define a paymaster field. The serializer only defines paymaster_and_data for v6 and paymaster_verification_gas_limit/paymaster_post_op_gas_limit for v7 operations. This will cause a KeyError when attempting to save a v7 user operation.

I used Claude to generate a test file for SafeOperationSerializer, I can remove it if it is not relevant to this pr.

cursor · 2026-01-05T18:38:29Z

safe_transaction_service/account_abstraction/serializers.py

+                self.validated_data["verification_gas_limit"],
+                self.validated_data["pre_verification_gas"],
+                self.validated_data["max_priority_fee_per_gas"],
+                self.validated_data["max_fee_per_gas"],


Swapped argument order for gas fee parameters in v7

The v7 UserOperationV7 constructor in save() passes max_priority_fee_per_gas before max_fee_per_gas, but the v6 constructor (and models.py to_user_operation() for both versions) passes them in the opposite order: max_fee_per_gas first. This argument order inconsistency will cause incorrect user operation hash calculation, resulting in signature validation failures or hash mismatches.

safe-global/safe-eth-py#2225

Sure, approved

…_until Tests cover validation of: - Module address and entry point version matching - v6/v7 field compatibility (factory, paymaster fields) - Nonce validation - Signature validation - Paymaster and paymaster_data validation - valid_after and valid_until timestamp validation Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <[email protected]>

sherifahmed990 added 11 commits October 30, 2025 04:15

Add EntryPoint v0.7 and v0.6 constants

4cf76e5

Add v0.7 entrypoint and module addresses to default settings

a6e2c4e

Add UserOperationV7 class for entrypoint v0.7 support

b0d76f9

Add SafeOperation wrapper class to oveeride from_user_operation to ac…

2a7b386

…cept UserOperationV7

Add database migration for entrypoint v0.7 support

e161f56

Update class UserOperation to support both v0.6 and v0.7 useroperations

8ff1f96

Update serializer classes to support v0.7 useroperation

f0bfdc2

Add support for useroperation v7 to index_user_operation

99c9dc5

Use the new SafeOperation wrapper class for tests

d52bbab

Override settings to only support v0.6 for test_process_aa_transactio…

c3f5cf4

…n_entrypoint_V07

Merge branch 'safe-global:main' into entrypointv7

be1e1b2

Sednaoui mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2025

4337: Index transactions for the 0.7 entrypoint #2011

Open

4 tasks

Uxio0 reviewed Nov 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

sherifahmed990 mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2025

Update UserOperationV07 safe-global/safe-eth-py#2120

Merged

sherifahmed990 and others added 8 commits December 6, 2025 21:06

Merge branch 'safe-global:main' into entrypointv7

c6ca161

Merge branch 'safe-global:main' into entrypointv7

1a03408

Bump safe-eth-py from 7.14.0 to 7.17.0

808007c

import ETHEREUM_4337_ENTRYPOINT_V6 &v7 from base.py

cfcfca1

import SafeOperation and UserOperationV07 from safe-eth-py 7.17.0

eaae31a

update comment

f097ccd

Co-authored-by: Uxío <[email protected]>

fix: import user_operation_v07_hash_1 and user_operation_v07_mock_1 f…

2b851a0

…rom mock_bundler

fix: ETHEREUM_4337_ENTRYPOINT_V6 and ETHEREUM_4337_ENTRYPOINT_V7

d8aee49

Merge branch 'main' into entrypointv7

c2e4b16

sherifahmed990 marked this pull request as ready for review January 5, 2026 18:34

cursor bot reviewed Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

sherifahmed990 marked this pull request as draft January 6, 2026 03:18

sherifahmed990 added 2 commits January 14, 2026 15:55

Merge branch 'safe-global:main' into entrypointv7

fcc9da4

use parentheses instead of brackets for validated_data.get()

0934612

sherifahmed990 and others added 3 commits January 14, 2026 17:40

Add paymaster and paymaster_data fields for v7 fields

96e7b5c

fix validation and handling for some fields

4965128

		SAFE_4337_MODULE_ADDRESS_V06 = "0xa581c4A4DB7175302464fF3C06380BC3270b4037"
		SAFE_4337_MODULE_ADDRESS_V07 = "0x75cf11467937ce3F2f357CE24ffc3DBF8fD5c226"

		ENTRYPOINT_V6 = "0x5FF137D4b0FDCD49DcA30c7CF57E578a026d2789"
		ENTRYPOINT_V7 = "0x0000000071727De22E5E9d8BAf0edAc6f37da032"

Add support to entrypoint v0.07 useroperations #2692

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add support to entrypoint v0.07 useroperations #2692

Uh oh!

Conversation

sherifahmed990 commented Oct 30, 2025 • edited by cursor bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Make sure these boxes are checked! 📦✅

What was wrong? 👾

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

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!

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!

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sherifahmed990 commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

sherifahmed990 commented Dec 12, 2025

Uh oh!

cursor bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This PR is being reviewed by Cursor Bugbot

Uh oh!

cursor bot Jan 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Method call syntax error using brackets instead of parentheses

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cursor bot Jan 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Missing paymaster field causes KeyError for v7 operations

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cursor bot Jan 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Swapped argument order for gas fee parameters in v7

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

sherifahmed990 commented Oct 30, 2025 •

edited by cursor bot

Loading