refactor(x/erc20): migrate legacy key store #756
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request introduce enhancements to the ERC20 functionality and migration processes across multiple files. Key modifications include the addition of a new test function for ERC20 key validation, updates to the upgrade handler to manage ERC20 store keys, and the introduction of a Migrator struct for handling key migrations. Additionally, several key prefixes in the KVStore have been updated or removed to reflect the new migration logic. 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 (7)
x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys_test.go (2)
14-21: LGTM: Well-structured test with random inputs.The test function effectively validates the conversion from an outgoing transfer key to an origin token key. It uses random inputs for thorough testing and follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern.
Consider adding more test cases to cover edge cases, such as:
- Empty module name
- Maximum uint64 value for txID
- Minimum uint64 value for txID
This will ensure the function behaves correctly under various conditions.
1-21: Overall: Well-structured and focused test file.This test file is well-organized and effectively tests the key conversion functionality for the v8 migration. It uses appropriate random inputs and assertions, following good testing practices.
To further improve the test coverage:
- Consider adding more test cases to cover edge cases and potential error scenarios.
- If there are other key conversion functions in the v8 migration, consider adding tests for them in this file as well.
- Think about potential integration tests that might be needed to ensure the migration process works correctly in a broader context.
x/erc20/migrations/v8/legacy.go (2)
11-19: LGTM! Consider adding comments for clarity.The new key prefix variables are well-organized and follow a consistent naming convention. They appear to be part of a migration process, which aligns with the package name
v8.Consider adding brief comments for each variable to explain their purpose, especially for less obvious ones like
ParamsKey. This would enhance code readability and maintainability.
21-25: LGTM! Consider adding a function comment.The
GetRemovedStoreKeys()function is well-implemented and serves a clear purpose in the migration process.Consider adding a function comment to explain the purpose of this function and why these specific keys are being removed. This would provide valuable context for future developers working on migrations.
app/upgrades/v8/upgrade.go (1)
48-49: LGTM: ERC20 store keys removal added.The addition of ERC20 store keys removal is consistent with the existing upgrade process for other modules. This ensures that obsolete ERC20-related keys are cleaned up during the upgrade.
For consistency with the other similar calls, consider adding a log message after this operation:
removeStoreKeys(cacheCtx, app.GetKey(erc20types.StoreKey), erc20v8.GetRemovedStoreKeys()) +cacheCtx.Logger().Info("removed obsolete ERC20 store keys")app/upgrade_test.go (2)
107-111: LGTM: ERC20 key check implementation looks good.The
checkErc20Keysfunction correctly retrieves and verifies the ERC20 parameters. The check forEnableErc20being true is appropriate for ensuring ERC20 functionality is enabled after the upgrade.Consider expanding this function to check other relevant ERC20 parameters or states if they exist, to provide a more comprehensive verification of the ERC20 subsystem post-upgrade.
103-111: Consider adding a comment to explain the ERC20 check.The addition of the ERC20 check enhances the upgrade test process. To improve code documentation and maintainability, consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose and importance of this new check in the context of the upgrade process.
Here's a suggested comment to add above the
checkErc20Keysfunction:// checkErc20Keys verifies that the ERC20 functionality is properly enabled after the upgrade. // This ensures that the migration of ERC20-related data and settings was successful.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- app/upgrade_test.go (1 hunks)
- app/upgrades/v8/upgrade.go (2 hunks)
- x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/migrations/v8/legacy.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/migrations/v8/migrations.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/types/keys.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
app/upgrades/v8/upgrade.go
[failure] 19-19:
could not import github.com/functionx/fx-core/v8/x/erc20/migrations/v8 (-: # github.com/functionx/fx-core/v8/x/erc20/migrations/v8x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys.go
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
[failure] 43-43:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set (typecheck)
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
[failure] 43-43:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set) (typecheck)
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
[failure] 43-43:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set) (typecheck)
🪛 GitHub Check: test
x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys.go
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
[failure] 43-43:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
🔇 Additional comments (9)
x/erc20/types/keys.go (1)
17-22: Significant changes to key prefixes require careful consideration.The consistent use of
collections.NewPrefix()for all key definitions is good for maintainability. However, these changes raise some important points:
The shift in prefix numbers from 1-6 to 11-16 and the removal of several key prefixes (as mentioned in the AI summary) indicate a significant change in how data is stored or accessed in the ERC20 module.
These changes will likely require a data migration strategy for existing chains. Ensure that a proper migration plan is in place and thoroughly tested.
The removal of key prefixes (KeyPrefixTokenPair, KeyPrefixTokenPairByERC20, etc.) needs verification. Please confirm that the functionality previously associated with these keys is either no longer needed or has been refactored elsewhere.
Update the module's documentation to reflect these changes, including any migration steps required for users of this module.
To verify the impact of these changes, please run the following script:
This script will help ensure that all old key prefixes have been properly removed and new ones are correctly implemented. It will also check for any migration logic related to these changes.
✅ Verification successful
Key prefix updates are properly handled through migration.
The old key prefixes are correctly maintained within the migration scripts to ensure smooth data transition. New key prefixes are consistently implemented, and no usages of old prefixes remain in the active codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining usage of old key prefixes and verify the implementation of new prefixes # Test 1: Check for any remaining usage of old key prefixes echo "Checking for usage of old key prefixes:" rg --type go "KeyPrefixTokenPair|KeyPrefixTokenPairByERC20|KeyPrefixTokenPairByDenom|KeyPrefixIBCTransfer|KeyPrefixAliasDenom|KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer" ./x/erc20 # Test 2: Verify the implementation of new prefixes echo "Verifying implementation of new prefixes:" rg --type go "DenomIndexKey|ParamsKey|ERC20TokenKey|BridgeTokenKey|IBCTokenKey|CacheKey" ./x/erc20 # Test 3: Check for any migration logic related to these changes echo "Checking for migration logic:" rg --type go "migrate|migration|upgrade" ./x/erc20Length of output: 5114
x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys_test.go (1)
3-12: LGTM: Imports are well-organized and relevant.The imports are logically structured and include all necessary packages for the test function. The organization follows good practices by grouping standard library imports, third-party libraries, and internal packages.
x/erc20/migrations/v8/migrations.go (1)
33-35: Approve: Key migration step added with proper error handling.The addition of
m.migrateKeys(ctx)with error handling improves the robustness of the migration process. This ensures that key migration is successful before proceeding to token migration.Consider the following suggestions:
- Document the new migration step in the method's comments to clarify the process for other developers.
- Assess the impact on migration performance, especially for large datasets.
- Update any existing migration documentation or guides to reflect this new step.
- Ensure comprehensive error logging is in place to facilitate debugging in case of migration failures.
To verify the implementation of the
migrateKeysmethod and its usage, run the following script:x/erc20/migrations/v8/legacy.go (1)
29-30: LGTM! Verify consistency across the codebase.The changes to
LegacyIsNativeERC20correctly use the newly defined key prefixes, maintaining the function's logic while aligning with the migration process.To ensure consistency, let's verify that all occurrences of the old key prefixes have been updated:
✅ Verification successful
Migration Consistency Verified
The migration process correctly removed all old key prefix usages. No issues found.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining usage of old key prefixes # Test: Search for old key prefix usage echo "Searching for old key prefix usage..." rg --type go "types\.KeyPrefixTokenPairByDenom|types\.KeyPrefixTokenPair" ./x/erc20 # If no results are found, the migration is complete if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then echo "No old key prefix usage found. Migration appears complete." fiLength of output: 315
app/upgrades/v8/upgrade.go (2)
Line range hint
1-114: Summary: ERC20 migration functionality successfully integrated.The changes in this file effectively integrate ERC20 migration functionality into the upgrade process. The additions are consistent with the existing code structure and follow established patterns for module upgrades. These modifications ensure that the ERC20 module's data is properly migrated and cleaned up during the v8 upgrade.
Key points:
- New imports for ERC20-related packages have been added.
- The
CreateUpgradeHandlerfunction now includes the removal of obsolete ERC20 store keys.These changes appear to be well-implemented and necessary for the successful upgrade of the ERC20 module.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 19-19:
could not import github.com/functionx/fx-core/v8/x/erc20/migrations/v8 (-: # github.com/functionx/fx-core/v8/x/erc20/migrations/v8
19-20: LGTM: New imports for ERC20 migration.The new imports for ERC20-related packages are correctly added and necessary for the migration functionality introduced in this upgrade.
Regarding the lint error for the
erc20v8import, let's verify if the package exists:If the script returns a path containing
erc20/migrations/v8, the lint error is likely a false positive.✅ Verification successful
Verified: ERC20 migration imports are correct, and the lint error for
erc20v8is a false positive.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the existence of the erc20v8 package fd -t d "migrations" | xargs -I {} find {} -type d -name "v8"Length of output: 129
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 19-19:
could not import github.com/functionx/fx-core/v8/x/erc20/migrations/v8 (-: # github.com/functionx/fx-core/v8/x/erc20/migrations/v8x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go (1)
68-68: LGTM. Verify data migration and update documentation.This change aligns with the PR objective of migrating the legacy key store. The update from
types.ParamsKey2totypes.ParamsKeyfor theParamsitem is a step in the right direction.However, to ensure a smooth transition:
- Verify that any existing data stored under
ParamsKey2has been or will be migrated toParamsKey.- Ensure backwards compatibility if any part of the system still references
ParamsKey2.- Update any related documentation or comments that might reference the old key.
To verify the usage of the new key and check for any remaining references to the old key, run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Verified:
ParamsKey2is no longer used, and the migration is handled by themigrateParamsfunction. Ensure that related documentation is updated accordingly.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usage of ParamsKey and ParamsKey2 # Test 1: Check for usage of the new ParamsKey echo "Occurrences of ParamsKey:" rg --type go "ParamsKey[^2]" -g '!vendor' # Test 2: Check for any remaining usage of the old ParamsKey2 echo "Occurrences of ParamsKey2:" rg --type go "ParamsKey2" -g '!vendor' # Test 3: Check for any migration functions that might handle the key change echo "Potential migration functions:" rg --type go "func.*(migrate|upgrade).*Params" -g '!vendor'Length of output: 1832
app/upgrade_test.go (2)
103-105: LGTM: Addition of ERC20 key check is appropriate.The inclusion of
checkErc20Keysin thecheckAppUpgradefunction is a good addition. It ensures that ERC20-related parameters are verified as part of the post-upgrade checks, which is consistent with the function's purpose.
103-111: Overall, the changes enhance the upgrade test process.The addition of ERC20-related checks in the upgrade test process is a positive improvement. It ensures that the ERC20 functionality is properly verified after an upgrade, which can help catch potential issues early. The changes are minimal and focused, integrating well with the existing test structure.
To further improve the code:
- Consider expanding the ERC20 checks to cover more parameters if applicable.
- Add comments to explain the purpose of the new ERC20 check for better documentation.
These suggestions aside, the implementation is sound and achieves its intended purpose.
| if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, string(newKey), sdkmath.ZeroInt()); err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Type Mismatch in m.keeper.Cache.Set: Incorrect Value Type
The call to m.keeper.Cache.Set is passing sdkmath.ZeroInt() as the value argument. However, m.keeper.Cache expects a value of type collections.NoValue. Passing sdkmath.ZeroInt() results in a type mismatch, as indicated by the static analysis tools.
To fix the issue, omit the value argument if Cache.Set only requires a key, or pass the appropriate value type expected by the method.
Apply this diff to correct the issue:
- if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, string(newKey), sdkmath.ZeroInt()); err != nil {
+ if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, string(newKey)); err != nil {
return 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.
| if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, string(newKey), sdkmath.ZeroInt()); err != nil { | |
| return err | |
| } | |
| if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, string(newKey)); err != nil { | |
| return err | |
| } |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: test
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
| if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, originTokenKey, sdkmath.ZeroInt()); err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Type Mismatch in m.keeper.Cache.Set: Incorrect Value Type
Similar to the issue above, the call to m.keeper.Cache.Set uses sdkmath.ZeroInt() as the value argument, leading to a type mismatch. The method expects a value of type collections.NoValue.
Apply this diff to correct the issue:
- if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, originTokenKey, sdkmath.ZeroInt()); err != nil {
+ if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, originTokenKey); err != nil {
return 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.
| if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, originTokenKey, sdkmath.ZeroInt()); err != nil { | |
| return err | |
| } | |
| if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, originTokenKey); err != nil { | |
| return err | |
| } |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: test
[failure] 43-43:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 43-43:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set (typecheck)
[failure] 43-43:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set) (typecheck)
[failure] 43-43:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set) (typecheck)
| func OutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey(key []byte) string { | ||
| // key = prefix + moduleName(string-) + sdk.Uint64ToBigEndian(id)(len = 8) | ||
| // 1. remove prefix | ||
| key = key[len(KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer):] | ||
| // 2. get moduleName | ||
| moduleName := string(key[:len(key)-8]) | ||
| // 3. get id | ||
| id := sdk.BigEndianToUint64(key[len(key)-8:]) | ||
| // 4. new originTokenKey | ||
| return crosschaintypes.NewOriginTokenKey(moduleName, id) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential Slice Bounds Out of Range in OutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey
In the function OutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey, slicing the key byte slice without validating its length could lead to a runtime panic if key is shorter than expected. Specifically, accessing key[:len(key)-8] and key[len(key)-8:] assumes that key has a minimum length of 8 bytes.
To prevent possible runtime errors, add a length check to ensure that key has at least the required length before performing slice operations.
Apply this diff to add length checks:
func OutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey(key []byte) string {
// key = prefix + moduleName(string-) + sdk.Uint64ToBigEndian(id)(len = 8)
// 1. remove prefix
+ if len(key) < len(KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer)+8 {
+ // Handle error appropriately, e.g., log or return an error/empty string
+ return ""
+ }
key = key[len(KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer):]
// 2. get moduleName
moduleName := string(key[:len(key)-8])
// 3. get id
id := sdk.BigEndianToUint64(key[len(key)-8:])
// 4. new originTokenKey
return crosschaintypes.NewOriginTokenKey(moduleName, id)
}Consider returning an error instead of an empty string to handle invalid keys appropriately.
📝 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.
| func OutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey(key []byte) string { | |
| // key = prefix + moduleName(string-) + sdk.Uint64ToBigEndian(id)(len = 8) | |
| // 1. remove prefix | |
| key = key[len(KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer):] | |
| // 2. get moduleName | |
| moduleName := string(key[:len(key)-8]) | |
| // 3. get id | |
| id := sdk.BigEndianToUint64(key[len(key)-8:]) | |
| // 4. new originTokenKey | |
| return crosschaintypes.NewOriginTokenKey(moduleName, id) | |
| } | |
| func OutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey(key []byte) string { | |
| // key = prefix + moduleName(string-) + sdk.Uint64ToBigEndian(id)(len = 8) | |
| // 1. remove prefix | |
| if len(key) < len(KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer)+8 { | |
| // Handle error appropriately, e.g., log or return an error/empty string | |
| return "" | |
| } | |
| key = key[len(KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer):] | |
| // 2. get moduleName | |
| moduleName := string(key[:len(key)-8]) | |
| // 3. get id | |
| id := sdk.BigEndianToUint64(key[len(key)-8:]) | |
| // 4. new originTokenKey | |
| return crosschaintypes.NewOriginTokenKey(moduleName, id) | |
| } |
| iterator := storetypes.KVStorePrefixIterator(store, KeyPrefixIBCTransfer) | ||
| defer iterator.Close() | ||
| for ; iterator.Valid(); iterator.Next() { | ||
| key := iterator.Key() | ||
| newKey := key[len(KeyPrefixIBCTransfer):] | ||
| if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, string(newKey), sdkmath.ZeroInt()); err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } | ||
| store.Delete(key) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // 2. migrate outgoing transfer relation | ||
| iterator = storetypes.KVStorePrefixIterator(store, KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer) | ||
| defer iterator.Close() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect Use of Defer with Reassigned Iterator
The iterator variable is reused and reassigned in the same function, with defer iterator.Close() called after each assignment. In Go, deferred calls to a method capture the variables at the time the function is executed, not when the defer is declared. This means both deferred calls will attempt to close the last assigned iterator, potentially leaving the first iterator unclosed and causing resource leaks.
To fix this issue, avoid reusing the iterator variable when deferring its Close() method. Use separate variables for each iterator.
Apply this diff to correct the issue:
func (m Migrator) migrateRelationToCache(ctx sdk.Context, store storetypes.KVStore) error {
// 1. migrate ibc transfer relation
- iterator := storetypes.KVStorePrefixIterator(store, KeyPrefixIBCTransfer)
- defer iterator.Close()
- for ; iterator.Valid(); iterator.Next() {
+ iterator1 := storetypes.KVStorePrefixIterator(store, KeyPrefixIBCTransfer)
+ defer iterator1.Close()
+ for ; iterator1.Valid(); iterator1.Next() {
+ key := iterator1.Key()
+ newKey := key[len(KeyPrefixIBCTransfer):]
+ if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, string(newKey)); err != nil {
return err
}
store.Delete(key)
}
// 2. migrate outgoing transfer relation
- iterator = storetypes.KVStorePrefixIterator(store, KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer)
- defer iterator.Close()
- for ; iterator.Valid(); iterator.Next() {
+ iterator2 := storetypes.KVStorePrefixIterator(store, KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer)
+ defer iterator2.Close()
+ for ; iterator2.Valid(); iterator2.Next() {
+ key := iterator2.Key()
+ originTokenKey := OutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey(key)
+ if err := m.keeper.Cache.Set(ctx, originTokenKey); err != nil {
return err
}
store.Delete(key)
}
return nil
}Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: test
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
[failure] 31-31:
cannot use sdkmath.ZeroInt() (value of type "cosmossdk.io/math".Int) as collections.NoValue value in argument to m.keeper.Cache.Set
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
x/erc20/types/keys.go (1)
17-22: Acknowledge the benefits of this refactoring while emphasizing careful migrationWhile the changes to the key prefixes are significant and potentially disruptive, they appear to be part of a larger refactoring effort to improve the organization of the KVStore. The new sequential numbering (11-16) suggests a more structured approach to key management, which could lead to better maintainability in the long run.
However, it's crucial to reiterate:
- Ensure thorough testing of all affected components.
- Implement and test a robust data migration strategy.
- Update all relevant documentation.
- Communicate these changes clearly to other developers and users of the module.
Consider documenting the rationale behind this refactoring and the new numbering scheme (e.g., why start at 11?) in a comment within this file or in the module's documentation. This will help future maintainers understand the design decisions made here.
x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys_test.go (1)
14-21: LGTM: Test function is well-implemented, with room for enhancement.The test function
TestOutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKeyeffectively verifies the conversion of an outgoing transfer key to an origin token key. It uses random generation for inputs, which is a good practice for robust testing.Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider adding test cases for edge cases, such as empty module names or extreme transaction ID values.
- It might be beneficial to add a test case for invalid input to ensure proper error handling.
- To increase test coverage, you could add multiple test cases within this function or create separate test functions for different scenarios.
Here's an example of how you could enhance the test function:
func TestOutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey(t *testing.T) { testCases := []struct { name string moduleName string txID uint64 }{ {"random values", tmrand.Str(5), uint64(tmrand.Int63n(100000))}, {"empty module name", "", uint64(tmrand.Int63n(100000))}, {"max txID", "module", math.MaxUint64}, {"min txID", "module", 0}, } for _, tc := range testCases { t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) { oldKey := append(append(v8.KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer, []byte(tc.moduleName)...), sdk.Uint64ToBigEndian(tc.txID)...) expectKey := types.NewOriginTokenKey(tc.moduleName, tc.txID) actual := v8.OutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey(oldKey) require.EqualValues(t, expectKey, actual) }) } }This enhancement adds multiple test cases, including edge cases, and uses subtests for better organization and reporting.
x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go (1)
Line range hint
1-124: Summary: Ensure this change is part of a comprehensive migration plan.The change from
ParamsKey2toParamsKeyappears to be part of a larger refactoring or migration process. While the change itself is straightforward, it's important to consider the following:
- Migration strategy: Ensure that there's a clear migration strategy in place to handle any existing data that might be stored using the old key.
- Version compatibility: If this is a breaking change, make sure it's properly documented and that version compatibility is maintained or handled appropriately.
- Testing: Comprehensive testing should be performed to ensure that this change doesn't introduce any regressions in the ERC20 module functionality.
Consider adding a comment in the code explaining the reason for this change and referencing any relevant migration documentation or issues. This will help future maintainers understand the context of this modification.
app/upgrade_test.go (1)
108-111: LGTM with suggestion: Implementation ofcheckErc20KeysThe implementation of
checkErc20Keysis correct and concise:
- It properly retrieves ERC20 parameters from the keeper.
- Error handling is implemented for parameter retrieval.
- The essential check for ERC20 functionality being enabled is present.
Suggestion for improvement:
Consider adding a more descriptive error message to the assertion for better debugging. For example:require.True(t, params.EnableErc20, "ERC20 functionality should be enabled after the upgrade")This will provide more context if the test fails in the future.
app/upgrades/v8/upgrade.go (1)
Line range hint
76-79: Avoid logging potentially sensitive key informationLogging the actual keys using
string(iterator.Key())could expose sensitive data in the logs. Consider omitting the key details or using a hashed representation to enhance security.You can apply the following diff to adjust the logging:
- ctx.Logger().Info("remove store key", "kvStore", storeKey.Name(), - "prefix", hex.EncodeToString(key), "key", string(iterator.Key())) + ctx.Logger().Info("remove store key", "kvStore", storeKey.Name(), + "prefix", hex.EncodeToString(key))
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- app/upgrade_test.go (1 hunks)
- app/upgrades/v8/upgrade.go (2 hunks)
- x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/migrations/v8/legacy.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/migrations/v8/migrations.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/types/keys.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (18)
x/erc20/types/keys.go (1)
17-22:⚠️ Potential issueSignificant changes to key prefixes require careful consideration
The modifications to the key prefixes in this file have far-reaching implications:
Several key prefixes have been removed (e.g.,
KeyPrefixTokenPair,KeyPrefixTokenPairByERC20, etc.). This could break existing code that relies on these prefixes.The remaining key prefixes have been updated with new prefix numbers (11-16 instead of 1-6). This changes the storage layout, which could affect data migration and compatibility with existing data.
The new prefix numbers are sequential (11-16), which is good for maintainability and readability.
These changes will likely require updates in other parts of the codebase that use these keys. Please ensure that:
- All code using the removed prefixes is updated or removed.
- A data migration plan is in place to handle the change in storage layout.
- Documentation is updated to reflect these changes.
To check for any remaining usage of the removed prefixes, run the following script:
This script will help identify any remaining usage of the removed prefixes in the Go files of the project.
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Removed key prefixes are only used in migration scripts
The removed key prefixes are exclusively referenced within the migration files (
legacy.go,keys.go, andkeys_test.go) in thex/erc20/migrations/v8/directory. This is expected behavior, as migration scripts are responsible for handling data transformations and ensuring compatibility with existing data structures.
- Migration Integrity: Ensure that all migration scripts correctly handle the removed prefixes to maintain data integrity during the migration process.
- Testing: Verify that the migration tests (
keys_test.go) cover scenarios involving these prefixes to prevent potential data issues.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usage of removed key prefixes in the codebase # List of removed prefixes removed_prefixes=( "KeyPrefixTokenPair" "KeyPrefixTokenPairByERC20" "KeyPrefixTokenPairByDenom" "KeyPrefixIBCTransfer" "KeyPrefixAliasDenom" "KeyPrefixOutgoingTransfer" ) # Search for usage of removed prefixes for prefix in "${removed_prefixes[@]}"; do echo "Searching for usage of $prefix:" rg "$prefix" --type go echo doneLength of output: 3214
x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys_test.go (1)
3-12: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and well-organized.The imports include all necessary packages for testing, including the standard testing package, Cosmos SDK types, and project-specific packages. The use of aliases is clear and follows common conventions.
x/erc20/migrations/v8/migrations.go (1)
33-35: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The addition of
m.migrateKeys(ctx)with proper error handling is a good improvement to the migration process. It ensures that key migration is performed before token migration, maintaining a clear separation of concerns.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the key migration step for better code documentation.
To ensure the
migrateKeysmethod is properly implemented, let's verify its existence and basic structure:✅ Verification successful
migrateKeys Method Verified and Properly Implemented
The
migrateKeysmethod exists and is correctly integrated into the migration process with appropriate error handling. Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the key migration step for better code documentation.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence and basic structure of the migrateKeys method # Test: Search for the migrateKeys method definition ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'func (m Migrator) migrateKeys(ctx $_) error { $$$ }' # Test: Check for any usage of the migrateKeys method rg --type go 'migrateKeys\(ctx\)'Length of output: 816
x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go (1)
69-69: Verify the consistency of the ParamsKey change.The change from
types.ParamsKey2totypes.ParamsKeylooks good, but it's important to ensure this change is consistent across the codebase and doesn't break existing functionality.Please run the following script to verify the consistency of this change:
This script will help ensure that:
- There are no remaining uses of
ParamsKey2that might have been missed.ParamsKeyis properly defined.ParamsKeyis used consistently in other parts of the code.Please review the results and make any necessary adjustments to ensure consistency across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
ParamsKey change is consistent and verified.
The update from
ParamsKey2toParamsKeyinx/erc20/keeper/keeper.gohas been successfully verified:
- No remaining instances of
ParamsKey2were found.ParamsKeyis correctly defined and used consistently within theerc20module.- Other modules maintain their own
ParamsKeydefinitions without conflict.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining uses of ParamsKey2 and verify the definition of ParamsKey # Check for any remaining uses of ParamsKey2 echo "Checking for any remaining uses of ParamsKey2:" rg --type go "ParamsKey2" # Verify the definition of ParamsKey echo "Verifying the definition of ParamsKey:" rg --type go "ParamsKey\s*=.*" # Check for any other uses of ParamsKey echo "Checking for other uses of ParamsKey:" rg --type go "ParamsKey[^2]"Length of output: 2112
app/upgrade_test.go (3)
103-105: LGTM: ERC20 key check added to upgrade verificationThe addition of
checkErc20Keys(t, ctx, myApp)to thecheckAppUpgradefunction is appropriate. This ensures that ERC20 functionality is verified as part of the upgrade process, which is consistent with the overall purpose of this test function.
107-107: LGTM: New functioncheckErc20KeysdeclaredThe declaration of
checkErc20Keysis consistent with other check functions in this file. The parameters (t *testing.T,ctx sdk.Context,myApp *app.App) are appropriate for a test function that needs to interact with the app context.
103-111: Overall assessment: ERC20 upgrade checks successfully implementedThe changes in this file effectively integrate ERC20 functionality checks into the upgrade verification process. The new
checkErc20Keysfunction is well-implemented and properly integrated into the existingcheckAppUpgradefunction. These additions enhance the robustness of the upgrade tests by ensuring that ERC20 functionality is correctly enabled after the upgrade.The implementation follows the existing patterns in the file, maintaining consistency and readability. No major issues were found, and the changes align well with the purpose of the upgrade tests.
x/erc20/migrations/v8/legacy.go (2)
11-19: Constants for Key Prefixes Defined CorrectlyThe key prefixes are appropriately defined and will aid in the migration process. This ensures that the keys are managed consistently across the migration logic.
21-25: Verify All Store Keys Are Included inGetRemovedStoreKeys()Ensure that all store keys that need to be removed during migration are included in the
GetRemovedStoreKeys()function. Currently, keys such asKeyPrefixIBCTransfer,ParamsKey, andKeyPrefixOutgoingTransferare not included. If these keys are also obsolete or need to be cleaned up, consider adding them to the list.Run the following script to identify all key prefixes and verify their inclusion:
x/erc20/migrations/v8/keys.go (7)
12-22: LGTM: Correct Management of Migration StepsThe
migrateKeysfunction accurately orchestrates the migration by sequentially invokingmigrateParamsandmigrateRelationToCache. Error handling is properly handled.
26-35: Reusing Iterator Variable with Defer May Cause Resource Leaks
31-33: Type Mismatch inm.keeper.Cache.Set: Incorrect Value Type
38-47: Reusing Iterator Variable with Defer May Cause Resource Leaks
43-45: Type Mismatch inm.keeper.Cache.Set: Incorrect Value Type
63-73: Potential Slice Bounds Out of Range inOutgoingTransferKeyToOriginTokenKey
52-61: Verify if All Parameters Are Properly MigratedThe
migrateParamsfunction currently only migrates theEnableErc20parameter. If there are additional fields intypes.Params, they should be included to ensure a complete migration and prevent potential issues with default values.Run the following script to list all fields in the
Paramsstruct:✅ Verification successful
All Parameters Are Properly Migrated
All parameters in the
types.Paramsstruct have been successfully migrated. No additional fields detected.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: List all fields in the Params struct within the erc20 module. # Expected Result: Display all the fields in the Params struct to verify if additional parameters exist. # Command: ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'type Params struct { $$$ }' x/erc20/types/ | catLength of output: 336
app/upgrades/v8/upgrade.go (2)
19-20: New imports for ERC20 migration added correctlyThe additions of
erc20v8anderc20typesimports are necessary for the ERC20 migration logic in the upgrade handler.
48-48: Proper removal of ERC20 store keys during upgradeThe call to
removeStoreKeysfor the ERC20 module ensures that obsolete store keys are cleaned up during the upgrade process, similar to the handling of staking and governance modules.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation