automate gas #25
automate gas #25
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedDraft detected. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily enhance transaction processing and gas estimation within the application. Modifications include updates to 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: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
broadcast/transaction.go (1)
77-93: The gas estimation logic needs additional safeguards and documentation.
While the addition of a gas buffer is a good practice to prevent transaction failures, consider the following improvements:
- Add validation for minimum and maximum gas limits
- Document the rationale for the 20% buffer choice
- Consider making the buffer percentage configurable
Here's a suggested improvement:
// Estimate gas limit with a buffer
txSize := len(msg.String())
baseGas := txParams.Config.BaseGas
gasPerByte := txParams.Config.GasPerByte
- // Calculate estimated gas
+ // Calculate estimated gas based on transaction size and base requirements
estimatedGas := uint64(int64(txSize)*gasPerByte + baseGas)
- // Add a buffer (e.g., 20%)
- buffer := uint64(float64(estimatedGas) * 0.2)
+ // Add 20% buffer to account for potential variations in execution cost
+ buffer := uint64(float64(estimatedGas) * txParams.Config.Gas.BufferPercent) // TODO: Add BufferPercent to GasConfig
gasLimit := estimatedGas + buffer
+ // Ensure gas limit stays within safe bounds
+ minGasLimit := uint64(50_000) // Adjust based on your chain's requirements
+ maxGasLimit := uint64(2_000_000) // Adjust based on your chain's block gas limit
+
if txParams.Config.Gas.Limit > 0 {
- txBuilder.SetGasLimit(uint64(txParams.Config.Gas.Limit))
+ gasLimit = uint64(txParams.Config.Gas.Limit)
}
- else {
- txBuilder.SetGasLimit(gasLimit)
+
+ // Validate final gas limit
+ if gasLimit < minGasLimit {
+ gasLimit = minGasLimit
+ } else if gasLimit > maxGasLimit {
+ gasLimit = maxGasLimit
}
+ txBuilder.SetGasLimit(gasLimit)main.go (1)
Line range hint 392-415: Consider adding unit tests for handleBalanceAdjustment and shouldProceedWithBalances
Adding unit tests for these new functions will help ensure they behave correctly under various conditions and improve code reliability.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 384-384:
SA4006: this value of resp is never used (staticcheck)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- broadcast/transaction.go (1 hunks)
- main.go (1 hunks)
- nodes.toml (2 hunks)
- types/types.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
main.go
[failure] 384-384:
SA4006: this value of resp is never used (staticcheck)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
nodes.toml (2)
22-22: Verify gas settings for contract deployment
Changing msg_type from "bank_send" to "store_code" significantly increases gas consumption. Contract deployment typically requires much more gas than token transfers.
Consider reviewing and adjusting the following gas-related parameters for contract deployment:
base_gas(currently 200000)gas_per_byte(currently 100)
17-17: Review positions count for contract deployment
With the change to contract deployment transactions, verify if using 50 positions is intentional and won't cause excessive resource consumption or network congestion.
Run this script to check for any existing contract deployment patterns or limits:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the positions limit and its usage.
Let me check how the positions value is used in the context of contract deployment.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
50 positions is within safe limits for contract deployment
The current setting of 50 positions is well within the codebase's defined maximum limit of 100 positions. The value is used for deriving accounts from the seed phrase and not directly related to contract deployment resource consumption. The store_code transaction itself follows standard CosmWasm patterns without any position-specific amplification.
- Maximum allowed positions: 100 (defined in main.go)
- Current setting: 50 positions (nodes.toml)
- Usage: Account derivation from seed phrase
- Impact: No direct correlation with contract deployment resource usage
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for contract deployment configurations and limits
rg -A 5 "store_code|positions.*=.*[0-9]+"
Length of output: 1541
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for MaxPositions constant and related code
rg -A 2 "MaxPositions.*=|const.*MaxPositions"
# Look for any documentation about positions usage
fd README.md --exec cat {}
Length of output: 4281
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how positions are used in relation to contract deployment
rg -B 3 -A 3 "positions.*=|positions.*:=|positions.*<-"
# Look for store_code message construction
ast-grep --pattern 'CreateStoreCodeMsg($$$)'
Length of output: 846
broadcast/transaction.go (1)
77-93: Verify gas configuration usage across the codebase.
Let's ensure the gas configuration changes are consistently applied across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different search strategy to gather more information about gas-related code.
Gas calculation changes are properly isolated and consistent
The verification shows that the gas calculation logic is centralized in broadcast/transaction.go and properly integrated with the configuration system:
- The gas estimation logic is only implemented in
broadcast/transaction.go - The gas configuration is properly structured in
types/types.go - Gas limit adjustments in
main.gowork with the same configuration system - No test files are impacted as they don't contain gas-specific test cases
The changes are well-contained and maintain consistency with the existing gas handling across the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for gas-related configurations and usages
# Check for gas limit configurations
echo "Checking for gas limit configurations..."
rg -l "Gas.*Limit|gas.*limit" --type toml
# Check for other gas estimation implementations
echo "Checking for other gas estimation code..."
ast-grep --pattern 'SetGasLimit($$$)'
# Check for potential test files that might need updating
echo "Checking for related test files..."
fd -e go -e toml test.*gas
Length of output: 377
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for gas-related code with more context
echo "Searching for gas configuration structs and types..."
rg -A 5 "type.*Gas" --type go
echo "Searching for gas calculation and estimation logic..."
rg -A 5 "gas.*estimate|estimate.*gas" --type go -i
echo "Searching for gas limit setter usage..."
rg -A 2 "SetGasLimit|GasLimit" --type go
echo "Looking for gas-related test files..."
rg -l "TestGas|test.*gas" --type go
Length of output: 2363
types/types.go (1)
165-165: Consider enhancing documentation and validation for the new Limit field.
While the comment indicates this field is "to be set entirely by software", it would be helpful to:
- Document the relationship between this field and the other gas thresholds (Zero, Low, Medium, High)
- Clarify when and how this limit is set by the software
- Consider adding validation to ensure the limit is positive and within reasonable bounds
Consider updating the comment to be more descriptive:
- Limit int64 `toml:"limit"` // to be set entirely by software
+ Limit int64 `toml:"limit"` // Dynamic gas limit calculated by software based on transaction complexity. Must be positive and typically ranges between Low and High gas values.Let's verify how this limit is being used:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the gas limit usage with a different search strategy.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response as we have sufficient context about how the Limit field is being used in the codebase.
The Limit field implementation is well-justified and properly used
The code shows that the Limit field serves as a dynamic gas limit with proper handling:
- It's used in transaction broadcasting logic with fallback to calculated values
- Has proper validation in
broadcast/transaction.gowhereif txParams.Config.Gas.Limit > 0ensures positive values - Integrates with automatic gas estimation that includes a 20% safety buffer
- Can be adjusted dynamically as shown in
main.gofor transaction retry scenarios
The current implementation and documentation are sufficient given that:
- The field is only set programmatically in well-defined scenarios
- Has implicit bounds through the retry mechanism (maxBlockGas - buffer)
- Integrates cleanly with the existing gas estimation logic
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usage of GasConfig.Limit to understand its context
rg -l "GasConfig" | xargs rg "Limit" -B 2 -A 2
# Look for any validation of this field
ast-grep --pattern 'if $_.Limit $_ {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 388
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any references to gas limit in the codebase
rg -B 3 -A 3 "gas.*limit" -i
# Look for functions that might be setting this limit
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_($_) {
$$$
$_.Limit = $_
$$$
}'
# Check for any gas-related calculations
rg -B 3 -A 3 "gas.*calc" -i
Length of output: 2280
main.go
Outdated
| // Assuming you are inside the loop where you handle the transaction response | ||
| if resp.Code == 41 { | ||
| fmt.Printf("Transaction failed with code %d: %s\n", resp.Code, resp.RawLog) | ||
| maxBlockGas := 75000000 | ||
| newGasLimit := maxBlockGas - 1000000 | ||
| txParams.Config.Gas.Limit = int64(newGasLimit) | ||
| fmt.Printf("Reducing gas limit to %d and retrying...\n", newGasLimit) | ||
|
|
||
| // Retry sending the transaction | ||
| resp, _, err = broadcast.SendTransactionViaGRPC(ctx, txParams, sequence, grpcClient) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to send transaction: %v", err) | ||
| } | ||
| continue | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure thread safety when modifying shared configuration
The modification of txParams.Config.Gas.Limit within a goroutine could lead to race conditions if txParams.Config is shared across multiple goroutines.
Consider copying the txParams or ensuring that each goroutine has its own instance to prevent concurrent access issues.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 384-384:
SA4006: this value of resp is never used (staticcheck)
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Optimize gas limit adjustment logic
The current logic reduces the gas limit to maxBlockGas - 1,000,000 upon encountering an error with code 41. Consider making the decrement value configurable or proportional to the previous gas limit to enhance adaptability across different network conditions.
Apply this diff to adjust the gas limit dynamically:
maxBlockGas := 75000000
-newGasLimit := maxBlockGas - 1000000
+decrement := int64(1000000) // Make this value configurable if needed
+newGasLimit := txParams.Config.Gas.Limit - decrement
if newGasLimit <= 0 {
return fmt.Errorf("gas limit cannot be reduced further")
}
txParams.Config.Gas.Limit = newGasLimitCommittable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 384-384:
SA4006: this value of resp is never used (staticcheck)
main.go
Outdated
| resp, _, err = broadcast.SendTransactionViaGRPC(ctx, txParams, sequence, grpcClient) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to send transaction: %v", err) | ||
| } | ||
| continue |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle the response after retrying the transaction
After retrying the transaction on line 384, the code reassigns resp but does not check the new response's Code. This can lead to unhandled transaction failures or missed errors.
Apply this diff to handle the response properly:
resp, _, err = broadcast.SendTransactionViaGRPC(ctx, txParams, sequence, grpcClient)
-if err != nil {
+if err != nil || resp.Code != 0 {
return fmt.Errorf("failed to send transaction: %v", err)
}
+if resp.Code != 0 {
+ fmt.Printf("Transaction failed with code %d: %s\n", resp.Code, resp.RawLog)
+ continue
+}Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 384-384:
SA4006: this value of resp is never used (staticcheck)
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Configuration Changes
Documentation
Limitto theGasConfigstruct for better configuration management.