Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[CT-1259] move account plus test functions to testutil #2444

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 3, 2024
Merged

Conversation

jayy04
Copy link
Contributor

@jayy04 jayy04 commented Oct 2, 2024

Changelist

[Describe or list the changes made in this PR]

Test Plan

[Describe how this PR was tested (if applicable)]

Author/Reviewer Checklist

  • If this PR has changes that result in a different app state given the same prior state and transaction list, manually add the state-breaking label.
  • If the PR has breaking postgres changes to the indexer add the indexer-postgres-breaking label.
  • If this PR isn't state-breaking but has changes that modify behavior in PrepareProposal or ProcessProposal, manually add the label proposal-breaking.
  • If this PR is one of many that implement a specific feature, manually label them all feature:[feature-name].
  • If you wish to for mergify-bot to automatically create a PR to backport your change to a release branch, manually add the label backport/[branch-name].
  • Manually add any of the following labels: refactor, chore, bug.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Introduced new transaction generation utilities for enhanced transaction building and signing processes.
  • Refactor

    • Updated test suites to utilize the new transaction generation functions, improving the efficiency and standardization of transaction testing.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Removed unused imports and streamlined dependencies across various test files to improve clarity and performance.

@jayy04 jayy04 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 2, 2024 23:59
Copy link

linear bot commented Oct 2, 2024

CT-1259 code clean up

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 3, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces significant changes to the protocol/testutil/tx/msg_tx.go file by adding two new functions, MakeTxBuilder and GenTx, which enhance the transaction building and signing processes. The modifications also include updates to several test files, where existing transaction generation functions are replaced with the new utility functions from the testtx package. This refactoring aims to standardize transaction creation and improve the testing approach across various test suites.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
protocol/testutil/tx/msg_tx.go Added functions MakeTxBuilder and GenTx for transaction building and signing.
protocol/x/accountplus/ante/ante_test.go Removed multiple Cosmos SDK imports; replaced GenTx with testtx.GenTx in test cases.
protocol/x/accountplus/ante/circuit_breaker_test.go Updated transaction generation to use testtx.GenTx in TestCircuitBreakerAnte.
protocol/x/accountplus/authenticator/base_test.go Replaced GenTx with testtx.GenTx and MakeTxBuilder with testtx.MakeTxBuilder in test methods.
protocol/x/accountplus/authenticator/signature_authenticator_test.go Removed unused imports; replaced GenTx and MakeTxBuilder with testtx equivalents.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • teddyding

Poem

🐇 In the meadow where transactions flow,
New builders rise, their power to show.
With GenTx in hand, we craft and create,
A world of signing, we celebrate!
Hopping along, our code takes flight,
In the garden of tests, everything feels right! 🌼


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
protocol/testutil/tx/msg_tx.go (2)

35-37: Consider using crypto/rand for cryptographic randomness

In generating the random memo string, it's preferable to use crypto/rand for cryptographic-grade randomness, especially if the randomness impacts transaction uniqueness or security.


22-32: Clarify parameter names for signers and signatures

The parameters signers and signatures are both slices of cryptotypes.PrivKey, which may cause confusion. Consider renaming them to more accurately reflect their roles, such as signerKeys for the public keys and signerPrivKeys for the private keys used for signing, or provide documentation to clarify their purposes.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9fecfc5 and f094eab.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)
  • protocol/testutil/tx/msg_tx.go (1 hunks)
  • protocol/x/accountplus/ante/ante_test.go (5 hunks)
  • protocol/x/accountplus/ante/circuit_breaker_test.go (3 hunks)
  • protocol/x/accountplus/authenticator/base_test.go (5 hunks)
  • protocol/x/accountplus/authenticator/signature_authenticator_test.go (3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (17)
protocol/x/accountplus/authenticator/base_test.go (3)

20-20: LGTM: Import addition is correct and aligns with PR objectives.

The new import for testtx is properly formatted and is used in the subsequent method modifications, which supports the goal of moving test functions to a utility file.


Line range hint 107-118: LGTM with a question: Clarify the purpose of the additional nil argument.

The change to use testtx.GenTx aligns with the PR objective. However, could you please clarify the purpose of the additional nil argument? It would be helpful to understand how this affects the behavior of the function and if there are any potential side effects.

To verify the usage of testtx.GenTx, please run the following script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the signature of testtx.GenTx and its usage

# Test: Search for the definition of GenTx in the testtx package
ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'func GenTx($$$) $$$'

# Test: Search for other usages of GenTx to compare arguments
rg --type go 'testtx\.GenTx\(' -A 3

Line range hint 144-155: LGTM with a question: Clarify the purpose of the additional nil argument.

The change to use testtx.MakeTxBuilder aligns with the PR objective. However, similar to the previous change, could you please explain the purpose of the additional nil argument? It would be beneficial to understand its impact on the function's behavior and any potential side effects.

To verify the usage of testtx.MakeTxBuilder, please run the following script:

✅ Verification successful

Clarification on the nil Argument Added to testtx.MakeTxBuilder

The addition of the nil argument aligns with the updated signature of MakeTxBuilder, allowing for the specification of selectedAuthenticators. In this context, passing nil effectively means no authenticators are being selected, which is appropriate for the current test scenario.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the signature of testtx.MakeTxBuilder and its usage

# Test: Search for the definition of MakeTxBuilder in the testtx package
ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'func MakeTxBuilder($$$) $$$'

# Test: Search for other usages of MakeTxBuilder to compare arguments
rg --type go 'testtx\.MakeTxBuilder\(' -A 3

Length of output: 5558

protocol/x/accountplus/ante/circuit_breaker_test.go (4)

20-20: LGTM: New import for test transaction utility.

The new import for the testtx package is correctly formatted and appropriately aliased. This import suggests a move towards using a dedicated utility for generating test transactions, which is a good practice for maintaining consistent and reusable test code.


Line range hint 180-192: LGTM: Consistent usage of testtx.GenTx.

The second instance of testtx.GenTx usage is consistent with the first, maintaining the same function signature. This change further reinforces the standardization of test transaction generation across the test suite, which is a positive step towards code consistency and maintainability.


Line range hint 137-149: LGTM: Updated to use testtx.GenTx.

The change from GenTx to testtx.GenTx is consistent with the new import and appears to be a drop-in replacement. This modification likely aims to use a standardized test transaction generation utility across the project, which is a good practice for maintaining consistent test code.

To ensure the new function behaves identically to the old one, please run the following verification script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that testtx.GenTx is used consistently and correctly

# Test: Check for any remaining usages of the old GenTx function
rg --type go 'func.*GenTx' protocol/testutil
rg --type go '(?<!testtx\.)GenTx\(' protocol/x/accountplus/ante

# Test: Verify the signature of testtx.GenTx matches the old GenTx
rg --type go 'func GenTx' protocol/testutil/tx

Line range hint 1-199: Overall: Good refactoring to use standardized test utilities.

The changes in this file are part of a larger effort to standardize test utilities across the project. The introduction of testtx.GenTx should improve consistency and maintainability of test code without affecting the actual test logic or coverage.

To ensure this refactoring is applied consistently across the project, please run the following verification script:

Consider updating other test files that might still be using the old GenTx function to maintain consistency across the project.

protocol/x/accountplus/authenticator/signature_authenticator_test.go (3)

10-10: LGTM: Import changes improve code organization.

The addition of the testtx import and removal of unused imports enhance code cleanliness and suggest better organization of test utilities.


Line range hint 1-305: Overall, the changes improve code organization without altering core functionality.

The modifications in this file focus on enhancing code organization by utilizing centralized test utilities and removing unused imports. These changes align with good coding practices and don't introduce any apparent issues. The core test logic remains intact, ensuring that the existing test coverage is maintained.

To further improve the code:

  1. Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of the new nil parameter in the testtx.GenTx function call.
  2. If there are any deprecated functions or utilities that were replaced by these changes, ensure they are removed from the codebase to prevent confusion.

Line range hint 245-256: LGTM: Updated to use centralized test utility, but clarification needed.

The change to use testtx.GenTx is good as it aligns with the new import and suggests a move towards more centralized test utilities. However, could you please clarify the purpose of the additional nil parameter? It would be helpful to understand its significance or if it's related to new functionality in the testtx.GenTx function.

To ensure the testtx.GenTx function is used consistently across the codebase, let's verify its usage:

protocol/testutil/tx/msg_tx.go (2)

22-108: The MakeTxBuilder function is well-implemented

The implementation of the MakeTxBuilder function correctly sets up the transaction builder with the provided parameters, including handling signatures and extension options appropriately.


110-139: The GenTx function correctly generates signed mock transactions

The GenTx function effectively utilizes MakeTxBuilder to generate signed mock transactions, facilitating testing processes.

protocol/x/accountplus/ante/ante_test.go (5)

20-20: Importing testtx for transaction utilities

The addition of the testtx import enhances code reuse and maintainability by leveraging shared transaction generation utilities from protocol/testutil/tx.


Line range hint 125-143: Consistent use of shared GenTx function

Replacing the local GenTx function with testtx.GenTx promotes consistency across tests and centralizes transaction generation logic.


Line range hint 198-216: Appropriate transition to testtx.GenTx

The usage of testtx.GenTx in place of the previously defined GenTx function is appropriate and aligns with the refactoring efforts.


Line range hint 265-284: Verify the consistency of signer information

In the call to testtx.GenTx, only one private key is provided in the fromPrivs and signers slices, while two messages are included. Ensure that the signer information correctly corresponds to the messages being sent.


Line range hint 381-403: Ensure correct usage of testtx.GenTx within test cases

Within the test cases loop, verify that the parameters passed to testtx.GenTx correctly reflect the intended test scenarios, especially regarding the selectedAuthenticator and key assignments.

Comment on lines +96 to +99
sig, err := p.Sign(signBytes)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Avoid panicking; return errors instead

In the MakeTxBuilder function, panicking upon encountering an error during signing isn't recommended. Instead, consider returning the error to allow the caller to handle it appropriately.

Apply this diff to modify the error handling:

 		sig, err := p.Sign(signBytes)
 		if err != nil {
-			panic(err)
+			return nil, err
 		}
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
sig, err := p.Sign(signBytes)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
sig, err := p.Sign(signBytes)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}

Comment on lines +101 to +104
err = txBuilder.SetSignatures(sigs...)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Avoid panicking; return errors instead

When setting signatures in the MakeTxBuilder function, if an error occurs, it's better to return the error rather than panicking.

Apply this diff:

 		err = txBuilder.SetSignatures(sigs...)
 		if err != nil {
-			panic(err)
+			return nil, err
 		}
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
err = txBuilder.SetSignatures(sigs...)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
err = txBuilder.SetSignatures(sigs...)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}

@jayy04 jayy04 merged commit af18d0c into main Oct 3, 2024
22 checks passed
@jayy04 jayy04 deleted the jy/cleanup-2 branch October 3, 2024 02:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants