refactor: privatize precompiled cross-chain contract addresses and ABI #782
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve significant modifications across various files related to cross-chain functionality in a blockchain context. Key updates include the removal of certain imports, restructuring of method signatures, and the introduction of new fields and methods to enhance the Changes
Possibly related PRs
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online_test.go (1)
Line range hint
19-91: Consider adding a test case for zero address validation.The test suite covers various scenarios but doesn't validate behavior with a zero address input.
Add this test case to the
testCasesslice:testCases := []struct { name string malleate func() (crosschaintypes.IsOracleOnlineArgs, error) result bool }{ + { + name: "zero address oracle", + malleate: func() (crosschaintypes.IsOracleOnlineArgs, error) { + return crosschaintypes.IsOracleOnlineArgs{ + Chain: ethtypes.ModuleName, + ExternalAddress: "0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000", + }, nil + }, + result: false, + }, // ... existing test cases }tests/crosschain_suite.go (1)
567-588: Consider enhancing input validation and error handling.While the implementation is thorough, consider these improvements:
- Add validation for input parameters (amount, fee should be non-negative)
- The error message in line 583 includes
targetwhich seems unrelated to the error context- The balance comparison could be more explicit with a descriptive error message
Consider this improvement:
func (suite *CrosschainTestSuite) Crosschain(token common.Address, recipient string, amount, fee *big.Int, target string) *ethtypes.Transaction { + if amount.Sign() < 0 || fee.Sign() < 0 { + suite.Require().FailNow("amount and fee must be non-negative") + } privateKey := suite.privKey crosschainContract := suite.crosschainAddr suite.ApproveERC20(privateKey, token, crosschainContract, big.NewInt(0).Add(amount, fee)) beforeBalanceOf := suite.BalanceOf(token, common.BytesToAddress(privateKey.PubKey().Address().Bytes())) pack, err := precompile.NewCrosschainMethod(nil).PackInput(crosschaintypes.CrosschainArgs{ Token: token, Receipt: recipient, Amount: amount, Fee: fee, Target: fxtypes.MustStrToByte32(target), Memo: "", }) suite.Require().NoError(err) ethTx, err := client.BuildEthTransaction(suite.ctx, suite.EthClient(), privateKey, &crosschainContract, nil, pack) - suite.Require().NoError(err, target) + suite.Require().NoError(err, "failed to build transaction") suite.SendTransaction(ethTx) afterBalanceOf := suite.BalanceOf(token, common.BytesToAddress(privateKey.PubKey().Address().Bytes())) - suite.Require().True(new(big.Int).Sub(beforeBalanceOf, afterBalanceOf).Cmp(new(big.Int).Add(amount, fee)) == 0) + expectedDiff := new(big.Int).Add(amount, fee) + actualDiff := new(big.Int).Sub(beforeBalanceOf, afterBalanceOf) + suite.Require().Zero(actualDiff.Cmp(expectedDiff), "balance difference should equal amount + fee") return ethTx }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (13)
- tests/crosschain_suite.go (7 hunks)
- tests/precompile_suite.go (0 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call.go (4 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_coin_amount.go (1 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/contract.go (2 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go (2 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go (3 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim.go (3 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle.go (1 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online.go (1 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/crosschain/types/contract.go (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- tests/precompile_suite.go
- x/crosschain/types/contract.go
🔇 Additional comments (24)
x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle.go (2)
Line range hint
1-90: Implementation looks solid!The overall implementation demonstrates good practices:
- Clear error handling and input validation
- Type-safe operations
- Consistent method signatures
- Reasonable fixed gas cost
- Good separation of concerns with Pack/Unpack methods
21-21: Verify crosschainABI initialization and thread safety.The change from
crosschaintypes.GetABI()tocrosschainABIaligns with the PR objective of privatizing ABI. However, we should ensure:
- The
crosschainABIpackage variable is properly initialized before use- There are no concurrent modification concerns if the ABI needs to be updated at runtime
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different search strategy to locate the ABI initialization.
Let's check the content of crosschain.go since it's likely the main package file that might contain the ABI initialization.
Let's try one more search to find the ABI initialization, focusing on the entire precompile package and looking for JSON ABI definitions.
Now I have enough information to provide the final response.
The crosschainABI initialization is properly handled and thread-safe
The
crosschainABIis safely initialized as a package-level variable usingcontract.MustABIJson(contract.ICrosschainMetaData.ABI)in thecontract.gofile. This initialization:
- Happens at package load time
- Uses a constant ABI definition from the contract package
- Is immutable after initialization (no runtime modifications found)
There are no concurrent modification concerns as the ABI is effectively constant after initialization.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify crosschainABI initialization and usage # Expected: Find where crosschainABI is defined and initialized # Test 1: Find crosschainABI definition echo "=== Searching for crosschainABI definition ===" rg -A 5 "var crosschainABI" # Test 2: Find any dynamic modifications to crosschainABI echo "=== Searching for modifications to crosschainABI ===" ast-grep --pattern 'crosschainABI = $_'Length of output: 289
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for ABI initialization patterns in the precompile package # Test 1: Look for ABI-related code in the package echo "=== Searching for ABI initialization patterns ===" rg -l "abi\." x/crosschain/precompile/ # Test 2: Check the content of any init.go files in the package echo "=== Checking init.go files ===" fd "init.go" x/crosschain/precompile/ # Test 3: Look for package initialization patterns echo "=== Searching for init functions or package variables ===" rg "func init|var.*abi\.ABI" x/crosschain/precompile/ # Test 4: Search for abi.JSON usage which is common for ABI initialization echo "=== Searching for abi.JSON initialization ===" rg "abi\.JSON" x/crosschain/precompile/Length of output: 828
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Examine crosschain.go for ABI initialization # Test 1: Look at the content of crosschain.go focusing on ABI-related code echo "=== Examining crosschain.go for ABI initialization ===" rg -A 10 "crosschainABI|var.*abi" x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go # Test 2: Look for any initialization in the package init echo "=== Looking for initialization patterns in crosschain.go ===" rg -A 10 "func init|package precompile" x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go # Test 3: Look for const declarations that might contain ABI definition echo "=== Looking for const declarations ===" rg -A 10 "const.*=.*\`" x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.goLength of output: 1044
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for ABI JSON definition and initialization # Test 1: Look for JSON ABI definition in any go file echo "=== Searching for ABI JSON definition ===" rg -A 5 '`{.*"name".*"type".*"inputs"' x/crosschain/precompile/ # Test 2: Look for crosschainABI initialization in any file echo "=== Searching for crosschainABI initialization ===" rg -B 5 -A 10 "crosschainABI.*=" x/crosschain/precompile/ # Test 3: Look for any file that might contain the ABI definition echo "=== Searching for files containing ABI-related code ===" rg -l "abi\.JSON\(.*strings\.NewReader" x/crosschain/precompile/Length of output: 1602
x/crosschain/precompile/contract.go (3)
Line range hint
1-11: LGTM! Clean import list.The removal of external dependencies (
ethtypesandcrosschaintypes) aligns well with the goal of privatizing contract addresses and ABI.
47-49: Verify consistent address usage across the codebase.The change to use a pre-computed address is good for performance and maintainability. However, we should ensure this address is used consistently across the codebase.
Let's verify the address usage:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can generate the final response as we have sufficient information about the address usage across the codebase.
Address usage is consistent across the codebase ✅
The verification shows that the
CrosschainAddressconstant is consistently used throughout the codebase:
- Defined as a constant in
contract/contract.go- Used in test suites and contract initialization
- All instances properly convert the hex string to
common.AddressusingHexToAddressNo instances of hardcoded addresses or alternative address computations were found that should be using this constant instead.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent address usage # Test 1: Search for direct CrosschainAddress usage rg "CrosschainAddress" # Test 2: Search for potential address computations that should use the constant ast-grep --pattern 'common.HexToAddress($$$)'Length of output: 473
14-17: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionConsider safer ABI initialization.
While moving these configurations to package-level variables is good for performance, using
MustABIJsoncould cause a panic at runtime if the ABI is invalid. Consider initializing these in aninit()function with proper error handling.Here's a safer approach:
var ( - crosschainABI = contract.MustABIJson(contract.ICrosschainMetaData.ABI) + crosschainABI abi.ABI crosschainAddress = common.HexToAddress(contract.CrosschainAddress) ) +func init() { + var err error + crosschainABI, err = abi.JSON(strings.NewReader(contract.ICrosschainMetaData.ABI)) + if err != nil { + panic(fmt.Sprintf("failed to parse crosschain ABI: %v", err)) + } +}Let's verify the ABI usage in the codebase:
x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online.go (1)
21-21: Verify the initialization ofcrosschainABIThe change from
crosschaintypes.GetABI()tocrosschainABIlooks good, but we should verify thatcrosschainABIis properly initialized and accessible.Let's verify the declaration and initialization of
crosschainABI:✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response since I have found clear evidence of the
crosschainABIdeclaration and its consistent usage across the codebase.
crosschainABIis properly initialized and consistently usedThe variable
crosschainABIis correctly declared and initialized inx/crosschain/precompile/contract.go:crosschainABI = contract.MustABIJson(contract.ICrosschainMetaData.ABI)It's consistently used across multiple precompile files for both methods and events:
- bridge_call.go
- bridge_coin_amount.go
- crosschain.go
- execute_claim.go
- has_oracle.go
- is_oracle_online.go
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the declaration and initialization of crosschainABI # Expected: Find where crosschainABI is declared and initialized # Look for crosschainABI declaration echo "Searching for crosschainABI declaration..." rg -p "var\s+crosschainABI\s*=" x/crosschain/ # Look for any references to ensure consistent usage echo "Checking for consistent usage across files..." rg "crosschainABI" x/crosschain/Length of output: 1195
x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_coin_amount.go (1)
24-24: LGTM! Verify crosschainABI initialization.The change aligns with the PR objective of privatizing contract addresses and ABI. The transition from
crosschaintypes.GetABI()tocrosschainABImaintains consistency with other precompile methods.Let's verify the initialization and usage of crosschainABI across the codebase:
x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle_test.go (1)
71-71: LGTM! Verify suite.crosschainAddr initialization.The change to use
suite.crosschainAddraligns with the PR objective to privatize precompiled cross-chain contract addresses.Let's verify the proper initialization of
suite.crosschainAddr:✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the initialization by checking the test suite setup and the contract package:
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
✅
suite.crosschainAddris properly initializedThe
crosschainAddrfield is:
- Correctly defined in the
PrecompileTestSuitestruct- Properly initialized in the suite setup using
common.HexToAddress(contract.CrosschainAddress)- Using the constant address
0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001004from the contract package🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the initialization of crosschainAddr in the test suite # Expected: Find the initialization in the suite setup # Search for crosschainAddr initialization in test files rg -A 5 'crosschainAddr.*=.*' --type goLength of output: 1908
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the contract package for CrosschainAddress definition rg -A 2 'CrosschainAddress.*=' --type go # Check the test suite structure and setup ast-grep --pattern 'type PrecompileTestSuite struct { $$$ crosschainAddr $_ $$$ }'Length of output: 643
x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online_test.go (1)
83-83: LGTM! Verify suite.crosschainAddr initialization.The change aligns with the PR objective of privatizing precompiled contract addresses.
Let's verify the contract address initialization:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the initialization of
crosschainAddrin the test suite.
Let me check one more thing to understand where the
CrosschainAddressconstant is defined.
Contract address initialization verified successfully
The verification confirms that:
suite.crosschainAddris properly initialized incontract_test.gousingcommon.HexToAddress(contract.CrosschainAddress)CrosschainAddressis a well-defined constant incontract/contract.gowith value0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001004- The address is consistently used across the codebase for crosschain precompile operations
The change from
contractAddrtosuite.crosschainAddris safe as it uses the standardized precompile address from the contract package.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify crosschainAddr initialization in the test suite # Expected: Find the initialization of crosschainAddr in the suite setup # Search for crosschainAddr initialization rg -l 'crosschainAddr.*=.*' --type go # Search for the CrosschainTestSuite structure ast-grep --pattern 'type CrosschainTestSuite struct { $$$ crosschainAddr $_ $$$ }'Length of output: 989
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the initialization of crosschainAddr in the test suite setup rg -A 10 'func \(suite \*CrosschainTestSuite\) SetupTest\(\)' --type go # Search for contract address deployment or initialization rg -A 5 'crosschainAddr.*=' --type goLength of output: 1980
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for CrosschainAddress constant definition rg -A 2 'CrosschainAddress.*=.*' --type go # Also check the contract package for any relevant constants rg -l 'package contract' --type goLength of output: 753
x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim.go (3)
12-12: LGTM: Package renaming is consistent with privatization objective.The renaming of the contract package to fxcontract and corresponding type assertion update maintains interface compliance while better reflecting the package's ownership.
Also applies to: 17-17
28-29: Verify crosschainABI initialization.The change from
crosschaintypes.GetABI()tocrosschainABIlooks good, but we should verify thatcrosschainABIis properly initialized before use.✅ Verification successful
Let's try a different search strategy to locate the ABI initialization.
The previous search might have been too specific. This broader search should help us find:
- How crosschainABI is used in the context file
- Any ABI initialization patterns in the precompile package
Let's try one more search to find the ABI initialization, focusing on the package-level variables and init functions.
Let's try one final search focusing on the precompile package initialization and the crosschain ABI in the parent directory.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response since we found the initialization of
crosschainABI:
crosschainABIis properly initialized as a package-level variableThe variable is initialized at package level in
x/crosschain/precompile/contract.go:var ( crosschainABI = contract.MustABIJson(contract.ICrosschainMetaData.ABI) crosschainAddress = common.HexToAddress(contract.CrosschainAddress) )The initialization:
- Uses
contract.MustABIJsonwhich ensures the ABI is valid at startup- Sources the ABI from
contract.ICrosschainMetaData.ABI- Is done at package level, ensuring it's available before any method usage
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify crosschainABI initialization # Expected: Find where crosschainABI is initialized in the package # Search for crosschainABI declaration and initialization rg -A 5 'var\s+crosschainABI\s*=' --type goLength of output: 45
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for crosschainABI in the file and surrounding context rg -B 5 -A 5 'crosschainABI' x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim.go # Also search for any ABI initialization patterns in the package rg -B 5 -A 5 '(abi\.JSON|abi\.MustUnpack)' x/crosschain/precompileLength of output: 433
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for init functions and package variables in the precompile directory rg -B 5 -A 10 '(func init|var \w+)' x/crosschain/precompile/ # Also check for any JSON ABI definitions that might be used for initialization fd -e json . x/crosschain/precompile/ --exec cat {}Length of output: 3634
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for ABI initialization in the precompile package and its parent rg -B 5 -A 10 'crosschainABI|func init' x/crosschain/ # Look for any ABI-related files or constants in the types package rg -B 5 -A 10 'ABI' x/crosschain/types/Length of output: 23036
68-68: Verify crosschainAddress initialization and event emission consistency.The updated event emission includes
crosschainAddressas a new parameter. This is a breaking change that requires verification.✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the initialization and usage patterns.
This should help us understand:
- How crosschainAddress is used and initialized
- The pattern of EmitEvent usage across the codebase
- The context of the function where this change is made
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response:
The crosschainAddress parameter usage is consistent and properly initialized
The verification shows that:
crosschainAddressis properly initialized inx/crosschain/precompile/contract.gousingcommon.HexToAddress(contract.CrosschainAddress)- The
EmitEventusage withcrosschainAddressis consistent across the crosschain module:
execute_claim.gobridge_call.gocrosschain.go- The pattern matches other precompile contracts (like staking) which follow the same pattern using their respective addresses
The change is safe and follows the established pattern in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify crosschainAddress initialization and event emission consistency # Expected: Find crosschainAddress initialization and verify consistent usage across codebase # Search for crosschainAddress declaration rg -A 5 'var\s+crosschainAddress\s*=' --type go # Verify consistent usage of EmitEvent with crosschainAddress ast-grep --pattern 'fxcontract.EmitEvent($evm, $addr, $data, $topic)'Length of output: 121
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for crosschainAddress usage and initialization patterns rg -A 3 "crosschainAddress" --type go # Search for all EmitEvent calls to verify consistency rg -A 2 "EmitEvent\(" --type go # Look for the function containing this code to understand context ast-grep --pattern 'func $name($$$) { $$$ fxcontract.EmitEvent($$$) $$$ }'Length of output: 12461
x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call.go (4)
13-14: LGTM: Import changes align with new functionalityThe new imports support the refactored event emission through
fxcontractand type handling viafxtypes.
65-65: LGTM: Consistent address handlingThe change to use
crosschainAddressdirectly aligns with the PR objective of privatizing contract addresses and maintains consistency across the codebase.
97-97: LGTM: Improved event emissionThe updated event emission using
fxcontract.EmitEventprovides better integration with the FunctionX framework and maintains explicit contract address handling.
28-29: Verify crosschainABI initializationThe direct access to
crosschainABIcould potentially cause runtime panics if not properly initialized. Please ensure thatcrosschainABIis initialized before this method is called.✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to find the initialization of
crosschainABI.
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response since I found the initialization of
crosschainABIinx/crosschain/precompile/contract.go(lines 14-16):Initialization of crosschainABI is properly handled
The
crosschainABIis safely initialized as a package-level variable usingcontract.MustABIJson(contract.ICrosschainMetaData.ABI). This initialization happens at package load time, ensuring the variable is available before any method calls. The use ofMustABIJsonguarantees that the ABI will be properly initialized or the program will panic at startup, preventing any runtime nil pointer issues.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for crosschainABI initialization ast-grep --pattern 'var crosschainABI = $_'Length of output: 45
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for crosschainABI initialization using ripgrep rg -p "crosschainABI" x/crosschain/ -A 5 -B 5Length of output: 2502
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any ABI initialization patterns in the crosschain module ast-grep --pattern 'abi.JSON($$$)'Length of output: 36
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for the file content to understand the context better cat x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call.goLength of output: 3939
x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go (2)
104-104: Verify consistent event emission pattern.The change to use
fxcontract.EmitEventwithcrosschainAddressaligns with the standardization effort. Let's verify this pattern is consistently applied across all precompiles.✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response since we have clear evidence of the event emission pattern usage across the codebase.
Event emission pattern is consistently implemented
The verification shows that
fxcontract.EmitEventwithcrosschainAddressis consistently used across all relevant precompile files:
- x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go
- x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call.go
- x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim.go
Additionally, there are no remaining instances of the old
EmitEvent(evm, data, topic)pattern, confirming the standardization is complete.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for all event emission patterns to ensure consistency rg "EmitEvent.*crosschainAddress" --type go # Check for any remaining direct EmitEvent calls that should be updated rg "EmitEvent\(evm, data, topic\)" --type goLength of output: 390
83-83: Verify token transfer direction and amounts.The change from
crosschaintypes.GetAddress()tocrosschainAddresslooks correct. However, given this is a critical path handling token transfers, please ensure:
- The direction of transfer (from crosschain address to sender) is intentional
- The amount validation logic is properly maintained
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the token transfer logic to verify the direction and amount validation.
Let me gather more context about the specific function containing this SendCoins call to understand the full flow.
From the context gathered, I can now generate the final response as I have enough information about the token transfer logic and direction.
The token transfer direction and amount validation are correct.
The SendCoins call is used in two scenarios, both handling native token transfers from crosschain module to sender:
In crosschain.go: When handling native token transfers (isOriginToken), it validates:
- Total amount (amount + fee) matches the value sent
- Token address is zero address
- Transfers from crosschain module back to sender
In bridge_call.go: Similar validation for bridge calls:
- Checks value.Sign() > 0
- Creates baseCoin with proper denomination
- Transfers from crosschain module back to sender
The direction (from crosschainAddress to sender) is intentional as it represents a refund flow where tokens are returned from the crosschain module to the original sender. Amount validation is properly maintained through value matching and coin creation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other instances of SendCoins to verify consistency in transfer direction rg "SendCoins.*crosschainAddress" --type go -A 3Length of output: 697
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the function containing this SendCoins call to understand the broader context ast-grep --pattern 'func $_($$$) $_ { $$$ SendCoins(ctx, crosschainAddress.Bytes(), sender.Bytes(), $_) $$$ }' # Also search for any amount validation before the SendCoins rg "baseCoin.*:=|NewCoin.*\(" --type go -B 3 -A 1Length of output: 78311
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the function containing this SendCoins call rg -B 10 -A 10 "SendCoins\(ctx, crosschainAddress\.Bytes\(\), sender\.Bytes\(\), sdk\.NewCoins\(baseCoin\)\)" --type goLength of output: 3281
x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go (2)
44-44: LGTM: Clear and appropriate field addition.The new
crosschainAddrfield with typecommon.Addressis well-named and appropriate for storing the cross-chain contract address.
60-62: Verify test coverage with fixed contract address.The switch from dynamically deployed test contracts to a fixed contract address (
contract.CrosschainAddress) could affect test isolation. Ensure that:
- Tests don't have unintended side effects due to shared contract state
- All test scenarios are still covered without the ability to modify contract state through deployment
Let's check for any test dependencies on the old dynamic deployment approach:
✅ Verification successful
Let's gather more information about how these files use
crosschainContractandcrosschainAddrTestto better understand the implications of the change.
Based on the gathered information, I can now generate the final response:
The switch to fixed contract address is safe and consistent
The change from dynamic contract deployment to using a fixed contract address (
0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001004) is safe because:
- The commented-out code was only used for test contract deployment and wasn't referenced elsewhere in the tests
- The
crosschainAddris consistently used across the codebase (incontract_test.go,crosschain_suite.go, andcontract.go)- The test suite's functionality remains intact as it only interacts with the contract through its address, regardless of how that address was obtained
- No test cases were dependent on modifying the contract state through redeployment
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for tests that might depend on the old dynamic contract deployment rg -l "crosschainContract" --type go # Check for any remaining references to the old crosschainAddrTest rg -l "crosschainAddrTest" --type goLength of output: 181
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the usage context of crosschainContract and crosschainAddrTest echo "=== crosschainContract usage in contract_test.go ===" rg "crosschainContract" x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go -B 2 -A 2 echo -e "\n=== crosschainContract usage in crosschain_suite.go ===" rg "crosschainContract" tests/crosschain_suite.go -B 2 -A 2 echo -e "\n=== crosschainAddrTest usage ===" rg "crosschainAddrTest" x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go -B 2 -A 2 # Check the contract.CrosschainAddress usage echo -e "\n=== contract.CrosschainAddress usage ===" rg "CrosschainAddress" --type go -B 2 -A 2Length of output: 3349
tests/crosschain_suite.go (4)
15-15: LGTM! Import changes improve clarity.The direct import of
github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/commoninstead of using an alias improves code readability.Also applies to: 20-20
38-38: LGTM! Field addition aligns with PR objectives.The addition of
crosschainAddrfield supports the privatization of precompiled cross-chain contract addresses.
54-54: LGTM! Constructor properly initializes the new field.The initialization of
crosschainAddrusingcontract.CrosschainAddressis consistent with the field addition.
87-88: LGTM! Method update maintains type consistency.The update to return
common.Addressmaintains consistency with the standardization of address types.
| Method: crosschainABI.Methods["crossChain"], | ||
| Event: crosschainABI.Events["CrossChain"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
Migration from CrosschainMethod to BridgeCallMethod is in progress but incomplete
The codebase shows that:
BridgeCallMethodis fully implemented inbridge_call.gowith all necessary methods and tests- Both methods are currently registered in
contract.go CrosschainMethodis properly marked as deprecated with a reference toBridgeCallMethod- However, there are still active usages in tests (
crosschain_test.goandcrosschain_suite.go) that need to be migrated
tests/crosschain_suite.go: Uses deprecatedNewCrosschainMethodfor packing inputx/crosschain/precompile/crosschain_test.go: Contains test cases using the deprecated method
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify migration plan for deprecated CrosschainMethod.
While the ABI reference changes look good, this struct is marked as deprecated in favor of BridgeCallMethod. Let's ensure there's a plan to migrate all existing usages.
Let me check the actual usage context of CrosschainMethod in these files to better understand the migration status.
Let me check if BridgeCallMethod is already implemented and being used as the replacement, to ensure there's a proper migration path.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for remaining usages of CrosschainMethod to ensure complete migration
rg -l "CrosschainMethod" --type go
Length of output: 177
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the context of CrosschainMethod usage in each file
echo "=== crosschain.go ==="
rg "CrosschainMethod" x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go -B 2 -A 2
echo -e "\n=== crosschain_test.go ==="
rg "CrosschainMethod" x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain_test.go -B 2 -A 2
echo -e "\n=== contract.go ==="
rg "CrosschainMethod" x/crosschain/precompile/contract.go -B 2 -A 2
echo -e "\n=== crosschain_suite.go ==="
rg "CrosschainMethod" tests/crosschain_suite.go -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 2572
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check BridgeCallMethod implementation and usage
echo "=== BridgeCallMethod Implementation ==="
rg "BridgeCallMethod" x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go -B 2 -A 2
echo -e "\n=== BridgeCallMethod Usage ==="
rg "BridgeCallMethod" -g '!*.md' --type go -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 6809
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor
Tests