Access control facet and lib

[Rushikesh0125]

Implemented access control facet and library

• exposed intuitive functions like assertOnlyRole, hasRole, and getAdminRole
• exposed functions for role management with revoke, renounce, and grant ops
• implemented a library with base internal methods
• same/similar error, event, and method names to oz

[mudgen]

Thank you, I will be reviewing this. We probably want to change "assert" to require because "assert" means something else in Solidity. @0xlynett please take a look at this too.

[0xlynett]

_assertOnlyRole seems unneeded, replace each instance with something like:

if (!s._roles[role].hasRole[account]) revert AccessControlUnauthorizedAccount(account, role);

There's a lot of getStorage() that could be AccessControlStorage storage s = getStorage(); and s instead

Also, the storage struct is called LibERC165Storage and the storage position is compose.erc165, mistake when copying a different file as a template?

Thanks!

(I just remembered that the Ownable library lacks a requireOwner function as well, rip. I'll fix that later)

[0xlynett]

Also the RoleData struct feels like it could just be split into two mappings such as _roleAdmin and _hasRole

[Rushikesh0125]

Oh yeah, I headed to a diff direction at the start.

Noted, will do these changes.

[Rushikesh0125]

gm @mudgen @0xlynett, I have refactored the implementation as recommended

• renamed assert to require
• replaced getStorage references with preloaded storage ref
• removed repetitive usage of assertOwner with in-line check and removed assertOwner internal function from facet
• renamed misnamed storage position
• reorg of role data struct to two mappings

[Rushikesh0125]

Hey @mudgen @0xlynett, bumping this up for review

[mudgen]

@Rushikesh0125, thanks I am looking at it

[mudgen]

@Rushikesh0125 Looks good. Just some styling issues to match the rest of the code base.

[mudgen]

@Rushikesh0125 How compatible is this with OpenZeppelin's version? I am unsure if compatibility matters much with this functionality, but maybe, do you have an idea? Are there any ERC standards that cover this functionality?

[Rushikesh0125]

@mudgen I've followed the same approach as Oz's implementation, with the addition of the recommended requireRole function to replace the modifier. I don't believe compatibility is a major concern here, since there's no specific (ERC) standard for this functionality. The oz/access library itself is generally accepted as the standard way to implement access control.

[Rushikesh0125]

@mudgen, I have made the required changes.

[panditdhamdhere]

great work @Rushikesh0125

[github-actions]

Coverage Report

Metric	Coverage	Details
Lines	0%	0/592 lines
Functions	0%	0/92 functions
Branches	0%	0/124 branches

Last updated: Sun, 26 Oct 2025 15:11:29 GMT for commit 25d5396

[mudgen]

Good job!