refactor(crosschain/precompile): split into method and abi #797
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several significant changes across multiple files, primarily focusing on enhancing the functionality and organization of cross-chain keepers and related methods. A new method, 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: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (19)
x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_coin_amount_test.go (1)
12-14: LGTM! Consider enhancing test coverage.The changes align well with the refactoring objective of splitting into method and ABI structures. The test correctly validates the basic structure of the ABI.
Consider enhancing the test coverage by adding assertions for:
func TestBridgeCoinAmountMethod_ABI(t *testing.T) { bridgeCoinAmountABI := precompile.NewBridgeCoinAmountABI() assert.Len(t, bridgeCoinAmountABI.Inputs, 2) assert.Len(t, bridgeCoinAmountABI.Outputs, 1) + // Verify method name and signature + assert.Equal(t, "bridgeCoinAmount", bridgeCoinAmountABI.Name) + + // Verify input parameter types + assert.Equal(t, "address", bridgeCoinAmountABI.Inputs[0].Type.String()) + assert.Equal(t, "uint256", bridgeCoinAmountABI.Inputs[1].Type.String()) + + // Verify output parameter type + assert.Equal(t, "bool", bridgeCoinAmountABI.Outputs[0].Type.String()) }x/crosschain/keeper/grpc_query_test.go (1)
35-35: LGTM! Consider enhancing pagination test coverage.The change is correct. However, since we're testing pagination, consider adding a test case for the
CountTotalfunctionality when it's set to true.Add a test case like this:
actual, err = s.queryClient.BridgeCalls(s.ctx, &types.QueryBridgeCallsRequest{ ChainName: s.chainName, Pagination: &query.PageRequest{ Offset: 0, Limit: 1, CountTotal: true, }, }) s.NoError(err) s.Equal(uint64(2), actual.Pagination.Total)x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim_test.go (1)
15-15: Update test function names to reflect ABI-based approachThe test function names still contain "Method" but they're now testing ABI functionality. Consider renaming them to better reflect their purpose:
TestExecuteClaimMethod_ABI→TestExecuteClaimABI_StringTestExecuteClaimMethod_PackInput→TestExecuteClaimABI_PackInputAlso applies to: 25-25
x/crosschain/keeper/pending_execute_claim_test.go (1)
42-42: Consider adding a test case with non-empty TargetIbc.The current test only covers the case where
TargetIbcis empty. Consider adding another test case that validates the behavior with a non-emptyTargetIbcvalue for better test coverage.x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle_test.go (1)
17-19: Consider enhancing ABI validation.While the length checks are good, consider adding more specific assertions to verify:
- Input parameter names and types
- Output parameter names and types
- Method name and signature
Example enhancement:
hasOracleABI := precompile.NewHasOracleABI() require.Len(t, hasOracleABI.Method.Inputs, 2) require.Len(t, hasOracleABI.Method.Outputs, 1) +require.Equal(t, "chain", hasOracleABI.Method.Inputs[0].Name) +require.Equal(t, "externalAddress", hasOracleABI.Method.Inputs[1].Name) +require.Equal(t, "bool", hasOracleABI.Method.Outputs[0].Type.String())x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle.go (2)
53-61: Add validation in NewHasOracleABI constructorWhile the implementation is clean, consider adding validation to ensure "hasOracle" exists in crosschainABI.Methods to prevent potential panics.
func NewHasOracleABI() HasOracleABI { + method, exists := crosschainABI.Methods["hasOracle"] + if !exists { + panic("hasOracle method not found in ABI") + } return HasOracleABI{ - Method: crosschainABI.Methods["hasOracle"], + Method: method, } }
Line range hint
81-87: Consider adding type assertion error handlingThe type assertion
result[0].(bool)could panic if the underlying type is unexpected. Consider adding explicit error handling.func (m HasOracleABI) UnpackOutput(data []byte) (bool, error) { result, err := m.Method.Outputs.Unpack(data) if err != nil { return false, err } + val, ok := result[0].(bool) + if !ok { + return false, fmt.Errorf("expected bool output, got %T", result[0]) + } - return result[0].(bool), nil + return val, nil }x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online_test.go (1)
17-19: Consider enhancing ABI test coverage.While the current test verifies the number of inputs and outputs, consider adding assertions to verify:
- The actual types of input parameters
- The type of the output parameter
- The method name and signature
Example enhancement:
isOracleOnlineABI := precompile.NewIsOracleOnlineABI() require.Len(t, isOracleOnlineABI.Method.Inputs, 2) require.Len(t, isOracleOnlineABI.Method.Outputs, 1) +require.Equal(t, "isOracleOnline", isOracleOnlineABI.Method.Name) +require.Equal(t, "string", isOracleOnlineABI.Method.Inputs[0].Type.String()) +require.Equal(t, "address", isOracleOnlineABI.Method.Inputs[1].Type.String()) +require.Equal(t, "bool", isOracleOnlineABI.Method.Outputs[0].Type.String())x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_coin_amount.go (1)
Line range hint
33-35: Consider delegating GetMethodId to BridgeCoinAmountABIFor better encapsulation and maintainability, consider moving the ID access to the BridgeCoinAmountABI struct.
+func (m BridgeCoinAmountABI) GetMethodId() []byte { + return m.Method.ID +} func (m *BridgeCoinAmountMethod) GetMethodId() []byte { - return m.Method.ID + return m.BridgeCoinAmountABI.GetMethodId() }x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go (2)
54-56: Consider adding validation for supported chainsThe initialization looks good, but consider adding a check to ensure GetSupportChains() returns a non-empty list to prevent potential panic with tmrand.
chainNames := crosschaintypes.GetSupportChains() +suite.Require().NotEmpty(chainNames, "supported chains list cannot be empty") suite.chainName = chainNames[tmrand.Intn(len(chainNames))]
63-78: Consider parameterizing hardcoded valuesThe SetOracle implementation is clean and well-structured. However, consider the following improvements:
- Extract the delegate amount (1e18 * 1000) to a constant or parameter
- Add validation for the start height value
+const defaultDelegateAmount = 1000 // in FX tokens + func (suite *CrosschainPrecompileTestSuite) SetOracle(online bool) crosschaintypes.Oracle { oracle := crosschaintypes.Oracle{ OracleAddress: helpers.GenAccAddress().String(), BridgerAddress: helpers.GenAccAddress().String(), ExternalAddress: helpers.GenExternalAddr(suite.chainName), - DelegateAmount: sdkmath.NewInt(1e18).MulRaw(1000), + DelegateAmount: sdkmath.NewInt(1e18).MulRaw(defaultDelegateAmount), StartHeight: 1, + // Consider parameterizing StartHeight or deriving from current block height Online: online, DelegateValidator: sdk.ValAddress(helpers.GenAccAddress()).String(), SlashTimes: 0, }x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim.go (1)
74-84: Consider adding validation in NewExecuteClaimABI.While the implementation is good, consider adding validation to ensure that the required method and event exist in the crosschainABI to prevent potential runtime panics.
func NewExecuteClaimABI() ExecuteClaimABI { + method, exists := crosschainABI.Methods["executeClaim"] + if !exists { + panic("executeClaim method not found in ABI") + } + event, exists := crosschainABI.Events["ExecuteClaimEvent"] + if !exists { + panic("ExecuteClaimEvent not found in ABI") + } return ExecuteClaimABI{ - Method: crosschainABI.Methods["executeClaim"], - Event: crosschainABI.Events["ExecuteClaimEvent"], + Method: method, + Event: event, } }x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_test.go (2)
48-56: Add documentation for the TEST_CROSSCHAIN environment variable.The dynamic module selection based on the environment variable is a good approach. However, it would be helpful to add a comment explaining:
- The purpose of TEST_CROSSCHAIN
- When it should be enabled
- What modules are included in the full test suite
+// TEST_CROSSCHAIN environment variable controls the scope of chain testing: +// - When "true": tests all supported chains returned by types.GetSupportChains() +// - When unset/false: tests only tron and eth chains modules := []string{ trontypes.ModuleName, ethtypes.ModuleName, }
85-85: Consider using AnyTimes() for the mock expectation.The current mock expectation uses
Times(1), which might be too restrictive and could make tests brittle. Since this is a basic setup expectation for a module address, consider usingAnyTimes()to allow for potential multiple calls during testing.-s.accountKeeper.EXPECT().GetModuleAddress(s.chainName).Return(authtypes.NewEmptyModuleAccount(s.chainName).GetAddress()).Times(1) +s.accountKeeper.EXPECT().GetModuleAddress(s.chainName).Return(authtypes.NewEmptyModuleAccount(s.chainName).GetAddress()).AnyTimes()x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call.go (1)
131-136: Minor: Improve variable naming in PackInput.The variable name
argumentscould be more descriptive to indicate it contains packed ABI parameters.func (m BridgeCallABI) PackInput(args fxcontract.BridgeCallArgs) ([]byte, error) { - arguments, err := m.Method.Inputs.Pack(args.DstChain, args.Refund, args.Tokens, args.Amounts, args.To, args.Data, args.Value, args.Memo) + packedParams, err := m.Method.Inputs.Pack(args.DstChain, args.Refund, args.Tokens, args.Amounts, args.To, args.Data, args.Value, args.Memo) if err != nil { return nil, err } - return append(m.Method.ID, arguments...), nil + return append(m.Method.ID, packedParams...), nil }x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go (3)
19-22: Enhance the deprecation notice with migration details.While marking the struct as deprecated is good practice, consider adding more context about the migration path for users of this struct.
-// Deprecated: After the upgrade to v8 +// Deprecated: This struct will be removed after the upgrade to v8. +// Use the separate CrosschainABI struct for ABI-related functionality instead. type CrosschainMethod struct {
25-31: Enhance the deprecation notice with migration details.Similar to the struct, the constructor's deprecation notice should provide more context about the migration path.
-// Deprecated: After the upgrade to v8 +// Deprecated: This constructor will be removed after the upgrade to v8. +// Use NewCrosschainABI() directly for ABI-related functionality. func NewCrosschainMethod(keeper *Keeper) *CrosschainMethod {
112-116: Enhance the deprecation notice with migration details.The deprecation notice should provide more context about future plans.
-// Deprecated: After the upgrade to v8 +// Deprecated: This struct will be removed after the upgrade to v8. +// Future versions will handle ABI functionality differently. type CrosschainABI struct {x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call_test.go (1)
147-147: LGTM: Thorough event creation test with a minor suggestion.The test effectively validates event data and topic generation. Consider adding comments explaining how the expected data and topic values were generated, which would help future maintainers understand and update the test.
Add a comment explaining the derivation of the expected hex values:
+ // Expected data is the RLP encoding of the non-indexed event parameters expectData := "000000..." + // Expected topics include the event ID followed by the indexed parameters expectTopic := []common.Hash{Also applies to: 162-162
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (20)
app/keepers/keepers.go(1 hunks)contract/crosschain_precompile.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out_test.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/grpc_query_test.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_test.go(4 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/pending_execute_claim_test.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call_test.go(5 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_coin_amount.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_coin_amount_test.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain_test.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim_test.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle_test.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online_test.go(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (42)
x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain_test.go (2)
12-12: LGTM! Clear initialization of ABI structure.
The change from NewCrosschainMethod(nil) to NewCrosschainABI() aligns well with the refactoring goal of separating ABI concerns.
14-17: Verify ABI structure field counts.
Let's verify that these assertion counts match the actual ABI structure definition:
- 6 Method inputs
- 1 Method output
- 8 Event inputs
x/crosschain/keeper/grpc_query_test.go (1)
24-24: LGTM! Verify consistency of chainName usage.
The change from moduleName to chainName aligns with the broader refactoring effort to standardize chain identifiers.
Let's verify the consistent usage across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information to verify if there are any remaining instances of moduleName in the context of bridge calls or related functionality.
Change from moduleName to chainName is consistent with proto definition
The verification confirms that:
- The proto definition uses
chain_nameas the field name - No instances of
moduleNamewere found in bridge calls related code - Both instances in the test file correctly use
chainName
The change aligns perfectly with the proto definition and has been consistently applied.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the consistent usage of chainName vs moduleName in QueryBridgeCallsRequest
# Expect: All instances should use chainName instead of moduleName
rg -A 2 "QueryBridgeCallsRequest\{"
Length of output: 1141
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining instances of moduleName in relevant files
rg -B 2 -A 2 "moduleName.*BridgeCalls|BridgeCalls.*moduleName"
# Also check the query proto definition to verify the field name
rg -B 2 -A 2 "message QueryBridgeCallsRequest"
Length of output: 463
x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim_test.go (2)
17-23: LGTM! Clean transition to ABI-based testing
The changes correctly implement the transition from method-based to ABI-based approach, with proper validation of both method and event string representations.
Line range hint 27-32: LGTM! Input packing test properly updated
The changes maintain the test's functionality while transitioning to the new ABI-based approach. The test continues to verify the correct hex encoding of packed input data.
x/crosschain/keeper/pending_execute_claim_test.go (3)
18-26: LGTM! Changes to MsgBridgeCallClaim test case are consistent.
The updates properly reflect the transition from moduleName to chainName while maintaining comprehensive test coverage for all modified fields.
38-44: LGTM! Changes to MsgSendToFxClaim test case are consistent.
The updates properly reflect the transition from moduleName to chainName while maintaining comprehensive test coverage for all modified fields.
Line range hint 18-44: Verify consistent usage of chainName across the codebase.
Let's ensure the transition from moduleName to chainName is consistent across all related files.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
The transition from moduleName to chainName is consistent and intentional across the codebase.
The search results show that:
moduleNameis primarily used for internal module operations (like module accounts, keepers)chainNameis consistently used in crosschain-related contexts (messages, queries, claims)- The change in the test file aligns with the broader codebase's usage pattern where
chainNameis the standard field name for cross-chain identifiers
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining instances of moduleName in test files
# and verify consistent usage of chainName
echo "Checking for remaining moduleName usage in test files..."
rg -l 'moduleName' --type go '*_test.go'
echo "Verifying chainName usage in related files..."
rg -l 'chainName' --type go '*_test.go'
Length of output: 404
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search without relying on file pattern matching
# First, find all test files recursively
echo "Finding test files..."
fd "_test\.go$"
echo -e "\nChecking for moduleName usage..."
rg "moduleName" -t go
echo -e "\nChecking for chainName usage..."
rg "chainName" -t go
Length of output: 76316
x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle_test.go (2)
12-14: LGTM!
The new imports are necessary for accessing the required types and are properly organized.
31-34: Verify SetOracle implementation.
The changes improve test maintainability by using SetOracle. The external address handling is more robust with proper chain-specific formatting.
Let's verify the SetOracle implementation:
✅ Verification successful
The search results provide comprehensive information about the SetOracle implementation and its usage. Let me generate the final response:
SetOracle implementation is well-structured and properly used
The SetOracle helper in the test suite is correctly implemented and safely used:
- Creates an Oracle with generated addresses and delegate amount
- Properly integrates with the underlying keeper's
SetOraclemethod - Used consistently across multiple test files for oracle-related test scenarios
- Maintains proper state management through the keeper layer
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify SetOracle implementation in the test suite
# Expected: Find the SetOracle method definition and its usage
# Search for SetOracle method definition
echo "Searching for SetOracle method definition..."
rg -A 5 "func.*SetOracle"
# Search for other usages of SetOracle
echo "Searching for SetOracle usages..."
rg "SetOracle\("
Length of output: 4987
x/crosschain/precompile/has_oracle.go (2)
16-16: LGTM! Good separation of concerns
The refactoring to use HasOracleABI as a separate embedded type improves code organization by isolating ABI-specific functionality.
Also applies to: 21-22
63-68: LGTM! Well-structured method implementations
The methods are well-implemented with appropriate error handling and clean interfaces. The change to value receivers is a good choice for this immutable type.
Also applies to: 71-75, 77-79
x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online_test.go (2)
12-13: LGTM!
The new imports are properly organized and necessary for the updated functionality.
31-34: Verify the SetOracle helper method implementation.
The test changes improve readability and determinism by using explicit oracle state setting. However, let's verify the implementation of the SetOracle helper method.
Also applies to: 42-45, 77-77
✅ Verification successful
SetOracle helper method is properly implemented and used
The SetOracle helper method is implemented in x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go and correctly:
- Creates a new oracle with generated addresses and delegate amount
- Sets the oracle state using keeper methods
- Sets up oracle-bridger and oracle-external address mappings
- Returns the created oracle for test usage
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the SetOracle helper method implementation
# Expected: Find the SetOracle method in the test suite
# Search for SetOracle method definition
ast-grep --pattern 'func ($suite *CrosschainPrecompileTestSuite) SetOracle($_) $_'
# Search for any references to SetOracle
rg -A 5 'SetOracle'
Length of output: 15508
x/crosschain/precompile/is_oracle_online.go (2)
16-16: LGTM! Good refactoring of ABI-related functionality.
The change to embed IsOracleOnlineABI improves code organization by properly encapsulating ABI-specific logic in a dedicated type.
21-22: LGTM! Constructor properly initializes all fields.
The explicit field names and use of the new ABI constructor improve code clarity.
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out_test.go (1)
23-28: LGTM! Changes align with the broader refactoring effort.
The updates from moduleName to chainName in the test setup maintain consistency with the overall architectural changes across the codebase, improving clarity in cross-chain operations.
Also applies to: 42-42
x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_coin_amount.go (3)
17-19: LGTM! Good separation of concerns
The replacement of the Method field with BridgeCoinAmountABI improves encapsulation and aligns with the single responsibility principle.
21-26: LGTM! Clean constructor implementation
The constructor properly initializes all fields and uses the new factory function appropriately.
Line range hint 70-96: LGTM! Well-structured ABI methods
The ABI-related methods are properly encapsulated with appropriate value receivers and consistent error handling. The implementations are clean and focused.
contract/crosschain_precompile.go (3)
40-40: LGTM! Field renaming improves clarity.
The change from HasOracle to Has in the response struct makes the field name more concise while maintaining clarity, as the context is already provided by the method name.
Also applies to: 45-45
49-49: LGTM! Consistent with the previous naming pattern.
The change from IsOracleOnline to Online follows the same pattern of concise field naming, maintaining consistency with the HasOracle changes.
Also applies to: 54-54
40-54: Verify the impact on client code.
While the field renaming improves code clarity, we should ensure all consumers of these methods are updated accordingly.
x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go (1)
25-25: LGTM: Clean addition of chainName field
The new field is well-placed and follows proper naming conventions.
x/crosschain/precompile/execute_claim.go (3)
19-27: LGTM! Well-structured refactoring of ExecuteClaimMethod.
The embedding of ExecuteClaimABI improves encapsulation by grouping ABI-related fields while maintaining a clean interface.
Line range hint 86-116: LGTM! Well-structured ABI method implementations.
The methods are appropriately moved to ExecuteClaimABI with correct use of value receivers for immutable operations. The error handling and method signatures are well-designed.
Line range hint 74-116: Verify consistent usage of ExecuteClaimABI across the codebase.
Let's ensure that all usages of the ExecuteClaim functionality have been updated to use the new ABI structure.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the usage patterns.
Based on the comprehensive analysis of the code, I can now provide the final response:
The ExecuteClaimABI refactoring is correctly implemented and consistently used across the codebase
The changes are verified to be properly integrated:
- The
ExecuteClaimABIstruct and its methods are correctly encapsulated inexecute_claim.go - The ABI initialization is done through
NewExecuteClaimABI()which properly references the crosschain contract ABI - All usages of execute claim functionality use the new ABI structure:
- Tests in
execute_claim_test.gouseNewExecuteClaimABI() - The precompile method in
ExecuteClaimMethoduses the new ABI - The test suite in
crosschain_suite.gouses the precompile method with the new ABI
- Tests in
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any direct usage of executeClaim method or ExecuteClaimEvent
# to ensure they're accessed through ExecuteClaimABI
# Look for potential missed refactoring of direct ABI access
rg -l "crosschainABI\.(Methods|Events)\[\"(executeClaim|ExecuteClaimEvent)\"\]" --type go
# Look for ExecuteClaimMethod usage to verify proper initialization
rg -l "NewExecuteClaimMethod" --type go
Length of output: 273
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of files that use ExecuteClaim functionality
rg -A 5 -B 5 "ExecuteClaim" --type go
# Look specifically at the test file to understand usage patterns
cat "tests/crosschain_suite.go"
# Check the contract implementation
cat "x/crosschain/precompile/contract.go"
Length of output: 193304
x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_test.go (3)
30-31: LGTM! Improved field naming.
The change from moduleName to chainName better reflects the actual purpose of this field, making the code more semantically accurate.
Line range hint 89-104: LGTM! Consistent use of chainName throughout the setup.
The keeper initialization and router configuration properly utilize the chainName parameter, maintaining consistency with the new approach.
48-56: Verify consistency of module/chain naming across test files.
Let's ensure that other test files have been updated to use the new chain-based approach consistently.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the test setup and module usage patterns.
Chain naming and test setup is consistent across test files
The verification shows that the codebase consistently follows the same pattern:
- All test suites use
chainNamefield for identifying chains - The
TEST_CROSSCHAINenvironment variable andGetSupportChains()are used consistently in test setups - Test suite initialization follows a uniform pattern across keeper and precompile tests
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to moduleName in test files
# and verify that chain-related test setup is consistent
echo "Checking for potential inconsistencies in test files..."
rg -g "**/*_test.go" "moduleName.*string" ./x/crosschain/
echo "Verifying chain setup patterns..."
rg -g "**/*_test.go" "chainName.*string" ./x/crosschain/
Length of output: 1888
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the test setup patterns and module initialization
echo "Checking test setup patterns..."
rg -g "**/*_test.go" -B 2 -A 2 "chainName.*string" ./x/crosschain/
echo "\nChecking module initialization and usage..."
rg -g "**/*_test.go" "GetSupportChains|TEST_CROSSCHAIN" ./x/crosschain/
echo "\nChecking test suite initialization patterns..."
rg -g "**/*_test.go" "suite.Run" ./x/crosschain/
Length of output: 2814
x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call.go (3)
21-21: LGTM! Good structural improvement.
The refactoring improves code organization by properly encapsulating ABI-related fields into a dedicated struct. This change aligns with Go's composition patterns and makes the code more maintainable.
Also applies to: 103-106
115-117: LGTM! Well-structured method migration.
The migration of ABI-related methods to the BridgeCallABI struct improves code organization while maintaining the existing functionality. The methods are properly scoped and maintain their original behavior.
Also applies to: 119-125, 127-129
26-27: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Verify ABI method and event initialization.
While the initialization looks clean, we should ensure that the crosschainABI contains the required method and event. Consider adding nil checks to provide better error messages.
Consider adding validation in NewBridgeCallABI:
func NewBridgeCallABI() BridgeCallABI {
+ method, exists := crosschainABI.Methods["bridgeCall"]
+ if !exists {
+ panic("bridgeCall method not found in ABI")
+ }
+ event, exists := crosschainABI.Events["BridgeCallEvent"]
+ if !exists {
+ panic("BridgeCallEvent not found in ABI")
+ }
return BridgeCallABI{
- Method: crosschainABI.Methods["bridgeCall"],
- Event: crosschainABI.Events["BridgeCallEvent"],
+ Method: method,
+ Event: event,
}
}Also applies to: 108-113
x/crosschain/precompile/crosschain.go (1)
126-128: Verify input sanitization for event topics.
The method uses user-provided input (denom, receipt, memo) directly in event topics. While these are packed using evmtypes.PackTopicData, please verify that proper input validation is performed upstream to prevent potential event manipulation.
✅ Verification successful
Input validation is properly implemented before event emission
The code review revealed that proper input validation is performed before the NewCrosschainEvent is called:
-
The
CrosschainArgsstruct has aValidate()method that checks:- Receipt is not empty
- Amount is positive
- Fee is non-negative
- Target is not empty
-
This validation occurs before the event emission, as
CrosschainBaseCoinis called first in the execution flow. -
The parameters used in event topics (denom, receipt, memo) are validated:
- Receipt is validated in CrosschainArgs
- Denom comes from a validated sdk.Coin
- Memo is passed through the validated CrosschainArgs
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for input validation of denom, receipt, and memo parameters
rg -A 5 "func.*ValidateBasic.*denom|func.*ValidateBasic.*receipt|func.*ValidateBasic.*memo"
Length of output: 93
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for any validation related to these parameters in the crosschain package
rg -A 5 "denom.*valid|receipt.*valid|memo.*valid" x/crosschain/
# Also search for where these parameters are processed before reaching NewCrosschainEvent
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_($$$) {
$$$
NewCrosschainEvent($$$)
$$$
}'
# Search for any length or format checks on these parameters
rg -A 5 "len\((denom|receipt|memo)\)"
Length of output: 1958
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look for the message types and their validation methods that might use NewCrosschainEvent
rg -A 10 "type Msg.*External struct" x/crosschain/types/
# Also search for any validation methods in the types package
rg -A 10 "func \(.*\) Validate\(\)" x/crosschain/types/
# Look for the actual usage of NewCrosschainEvent to understand the call chain
rg -B 5 -A 5 "NewCrosschainEvent\("
Length of output: 4082
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the validation in the CrosschainBaseCoin method since it's called before NewCrosschainEvent
rg -B 5 -A 10 "func.*CrosschainBaseCoin" x/crosschain/keeper/
# Also check for any validation in the message handler
rg -B 5 -A 10 "func.*HandleCrossChainRequest" x/crosschain/
# Look for any parameter validation in the contract args
rg -B 5 -A 10 "type CrosschainArgs struct"
Length of output: 1892
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the full validation implementation for CrosschainArgs
rg -A 15 "func \(args \*CrosschainArgs\) Validate\(\)" contract/
# Also check for any validation in the precompile's crosschain method
rg -A 15 "func \(c \*Contract\) crossChain\(" x/crosschain/precompile/
# Look for any denom validation in the keeper
rg -A 5 "validateDenom|ValidateDenom" x/crosschain/
Length of output: 935
x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go (2)
37-46: LGTM! Verify test coverage for all supported chains.
The refactored module initialization provides better flexibility with a good default case (Tron and ETH) while allowing comprehensive testing of all chains when needed.
Let's verify that all supported chains are properly included when TEST_CROSSCHAIN is enabled:
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the output to verify the supported chains. I'll run one more script to specifically find the GetSupportChains implementation since it wasn't found in the previous search.
Let me check the external address router initialization to see all supported chains.
Let me search for where the external address router is populated with chain registrations.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
✅ The test coverage approach is well-designed and comprehensive
The current implementation correctly handles all supported chains:
- Default test case covers essential chains (Tron and ETH)
- When TEST_CROSSCHAIN=true, it tests all registered chains:
- Tron
- ETH
- BSC
- Polygon
- Avalanche
- Arbitrum
- Optimism
- Layer2
The dynamic loading through GetSupportChains() ensures that any newly registered chain will automatically be included in the test suite when TEST_CROSSCHAIN is enabled.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that all supported chains are included in the test coverage
# Test 1: Get all supported chains from the codebase
echo "Supported chains in the codebase:"
ast-grep --pattern 'func GetSupportChains() []string {
$$$
return $result
}'
# Test 2: Check for any chain-specific types or imports that might have been missed
echo -e "\nChain-specific types usage:"
rg --type go "types\.ModuleName" -g '!*test*'
Length of output: 26148
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for GetSupportChains implementation in crosschain types
rg -A 10 "func GetSupportChains" x/crosschain/types/
Length of output: 764
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for externalAddressRouter initialization
rg -B 5 -A 15 "externalAddressRouter =" x/crosschain/types/
Length of output: 1510
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for RegisterExternalAddress calls to see which chains are registered
rg "RegisterExternalAddress\(" --type go
Length of output: 1016
60-60: LGTM! Verify GetKeeper implementation.
The simplified keeper retrieval improves maintainability by removing the switch-case logic in favor of a dynamic approach.
Let's verify the GetKeeper implementation:
x/crosschain/precompile/bridge_call_test.go (4)
18-21: LGTM: Clear and focused test for ABI structure.
The test effectively validates the expected number of inputs and outputs for the bridge call ABI.
25-29: LGTM: Comprehensive validation of bridge call method properties.
The test thoroughly validates the method signature, state mutability, and input parameters structure.
81-82: LGTM: Clear validation of bridge call output structure.
The test effectively verifies the output structure of the ABI method.
98-107: Verify the hardcoded event ID hash.
While the test is well-structured, it's important to verify that the hardcoded event ID hash is correct and matches the actual keccak256 hash of the event signature.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the event definition to verify its consistency across the codebase.
Let me search for the actual implementation of NewBridgeCallABI() to verify the event definition.
Let me search for the ABI definition and event initialization.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
The hardcoded event ID hash is verified and consistent across the codebase
The event ID 0x4a9b24da6150ef33e7c41038842b7c94fe89a4fff22dccb2c3fd79f0176062c6 is consistently used across multiple components:
- Contract interfaces (
ICrosschain,IFxBridgeLogic) - Generated Go bindings
- Test assertions
The event signature and structure are also consistent, with:
- 11 total parameters
- First 3 parameters being indexed (
_sender,_receiver/_refund,_to) - Matching parameter types across all implementations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the event ID matches the keccak256 hash of the event signature
# Expected: The event ID should match "0x4a9b24da6150ef33e7c41038842b7c94fe89a4fff22dccb2c3fd79f0176062c6"
# Search for any other occurrences of this event ID in the codebase
rg "4a9b24da6150ef33e7c41038842b7c94fe89a4fff22dccb2c3fd79f0176062c6"
# Search for the event signature to verify consistency
rg "BridgeCallEvent\(address,address,address,address,uint256,uint256,string,address\[\],uint256\[\],bytes,bytes\)"
Length of output: 1766
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for Solidity event definition
rg -A 2 "event BridgeCallEvent"
# Search for the ABI definition in Go code
ast-grep --pattern 'NewBridgeCallABI()' -A 10
Length of output: 4908
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for NewBridgeCallABI implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'func NewBridgeCallABI() $_'
# Also search for any constant definitions related to the event
rg -A 5 "BridgeCallEventSig"
Length of output: 502
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for crosschainABI initialization
rg -B 5 -A 10 "var crosschainABI"
# Search for the contract ABI JSON file that might contain the event definition
fd -e json -x cat {} | rg -l "BridgeCallEvent"
Length of output: 84
app/keepers/keepers.go (2)
108-129: LGTM with suggestions!
The implementation of GetKeeper is clean, well-structured, and aligns well with the refactoring objectives. The method provides a clear and maintainable way to access specific keepers based on module names.
108-129: Verify the usage of GetKeeper method.
Let's identify all callers of this method to assess the impact of changing the return signature.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the test files to understand how they handle potential errors.
Let me check the interface definition to understand if error handling is part of the contract.
Let me check one final thing - the actual usage context of this method in the test files.
Based on the analysis of the codebase, I can now provide the final response:
GetKeeper method's current implementation is appropriate
The method is only used in test files and the implementation follows the established pattern in the codebase. The panic in the default case is acceptable because:
- It's only called with known valid module names from the test suites
- It's a compile-time guarantee as the module names are constants
- There are no production/non-test usages of this method
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all usages of GetKeeper method on CrosschainKeepers
rg -A 2 "CrosschainKeepers.*GetKeeper\("
Length of output: 744
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the test setup and error handling in the test files
echo "=== keeper_v1_test.go ==="
rg -B 2 -A 5 "GetKeeper\(suite\.chainName\)" x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go
echo -e "\n=== contract_test.go ==="
rg -B 2 -A 5 "GetKeeper\(suite\.chainName\)" x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go
# Check if GetKeeper is used in any non-test files
echo -e "\n=== Non-test usage ==="
rg -g '!*test*' "GetKeeper\("
Length of output: 1073
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for the Keeper interface definition
echo "=== Keeper interface ==="
rg -B 2 -A 5 "type Keeper interface" x/crosschain/types/
# Check if there are any other methods in the codebase that follow similar pattern
echo -e "\n=== Similar patterns ==="
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_($_) $_ {
switch $_ {
$$$
default:
panic($_)
}
}'
Length of output: 279
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more context around the test usage
echo "=== Test Suite Setup ==="
rg -B 10 -A 10 "chainName.*string" x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go x/crosschain/precompile/contract_test.go
# Check if there are any error checks after GetKeeper calls
echo -e "\n=== Error Handling Context ==="
rg -B 5 -A 5 "GetKeeper.*\n.*if.*err.*!= nil" x/crosschain/
Length of output: 3242
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
GetKeeperfor retrieving specific keepers based on module names.Bug Fixes
chainNameinstead ofmoduleNameacross multiple test files.Documentation
Refactor