[Pushers N02] Using if else instead of require

[luiz-lvj]

This PR updates Pushers contracts to use require instead of if else

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Enhanced code consistency by standardizing parameter validation logic across smart contract constructors, implementing uniform error handling patterns for address validation during initialization.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Three smart contract constructors refactored to replace conditional revert patterns with require statements for zero-address validation. LineaPusher, ScrollPusher, and ZkSyncPusher each now use require checks to enforce non-zero rollup/messenger/diamond addresses during initialization, maintaining identical error handling behavior through custom error types.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Constructor Validation Refactoring src/contracts/block-hash-pusher/linea/LineaPusher.sol, src/contracts/block-hash-pusher/scroll/ScrollPusher.sol, src/contracts/block-hash-pusher/zksync/ZkSyncPusher.sol	Replaced manual if-condition revert patterns with require statements to validate constructor parameters are non-zero addresses. Each contract's zero-address check now uses a single require statement instead of conditional revert logic, with error reporting via custom error types (InvalidLineaRollupAddress, InvalidL1ScrollMessengerAddress, InvalidZkSyncDiamondAddress).

Possibly related PRs

• openintentsframework/broadcaster#68: Adds and normalizes zero-address validation in the same three Pusher constructors.
• openintentsframework/broadcaster#73: Makes identical constructor-level replacements of manual revert checks with require statements for zero-address validation across LineaPusher, ScrollPusher, and ZkSyncPusher.

Poem

🐰 Three pushers grew wise today,
No more tangled ifs in their way,
Require statements, clean and bright,
Zero-check validation done right! ✨

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	⚠️ Warning	The title claims the PR uses 'if else instead of require,' but the actual changes replace 'if-else with revert' patterns with 'require' statements—the opposite of what the title states.	Update the title to accurately reflect the changes, such as '[Pushers N02] Use require instead of if-else' or '[Pushers N02] Replace if-else patterns with require statements.'

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/pushers-N02

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}