ROLLUP-437: complete withdrawals configuration

[franciscotobar]

What

• As an operator, I want to have the possibility to configure the server to allow or not the complete withdrawal. For security reasons, such configuration should NOT be allowed in Mainnet.

• Complete withdrawal: when enabled, it allows the users to move funds from their L2 accounts to their L1 accounts directly. When disabled, if the user withdraws funds from L2, the funds are stored in the L1 contract; the users need to get the pending balances to move funds from the L1 contract to their L1 addresses.

Why

• UX

Refs

• ROLLUP-437

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!.

[antomor]

@franciscotobar thank you for the changes 🙏🏼
It looks like everything is working as expected apart from the config check. There, we check for the chain_eth_network, but that value is supposed to be localhost for now. So we should either change the value in the mainnet configuration or check for the chain_id.

Furthermore, (not related to this PR) I've realised that the chain_id configured in api.toml is under the wrong section [api.rest], because it's supposed to be [api.web3].

[franciscotobar]

@franciscotobar thank you for the changes 🙏🏼 It looks like everything is working as expected apart from the config check. There, we check for the chain_eth_network, but that value is supposed to be localhost for now. So we should either change the value in the mainnet configuration or check for the chain_id.

Furthermore, (not related to this PR) I've realised that the chain_id configured in api.toml is under the wrong section [api.rest], because it's supposed to be [api.web3].

In testnet and qa, I have the testnet value, but I'm concerned about the comment https://github.com/rsksmart/rif-rollup/blob/ROLLUP-437/configurable-withdrawal/etc/env/mainnet/chain.toml#L19.

Maybe using the chain_id, will be better, but we will be only taken into account, RSK.

[antomor]

Maybe using the chain_id, will be better, but we will be only taken into account, RSK.

Yes, I thought the same indeed

[antomor]

LGTM