Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

refactor(x/crosschain): remove unnecessary storage of transaction batch #781

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 24, 2024

Conversation

zakir-code
Copy link
Contributor

@zakir-code zakir-code commented Oct 24, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced clarity and conciseness in cross-chain transaction handling.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Simplified error handling for outgoing transaction batches.
  • Refactor

    • Removed unnecessary cache key variable and redundant cache settings.
    • Streamlined the OutgoingTxBatchExecuted method by eliminating the transaction deletion loop.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 24, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces several changes to the keeper package, specifically in the bridge_call_out.go and outgoing_tx.go files. Key modifications include the removal of unnecessary cache key variables and simplification of error handling in the CrosschainBaseCoin method. Additionally, the OutgoingTxBatchExecuted method has been streamlined by eliminating the loop that deleted individual transaction caches, focusing instead on batch execution. These changes enhance the clarity and conciseness of the code while maintaining core functionalities.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out.go - Removed cacheKey variable from CrosschainBaseCoin method.
- Simplified caching logic for originToken.
- Streamlined error handling in BuildOutgoingTxBatch method.
- Removed redundant cache setting for originToken.
x/crosschain/keeper/outgoing_tx.go - Removed loop that deleted outgoing transfer relations for each transaction in OutgoingTxBatchExecuted method, simplifying the method's logic while retaining core functionality.

Possibly related PRs

🐰 In the code's burrow, changes abound,
With caching and loops no longer found.
Simplified flows, oh what a delight,
In the keeper's realm, everything feels right!
Hops of clarity, leaps of cheer,
Code so tidy, we hold it dear! 🐇✨


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

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

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

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

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

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

Other keywords and placeholders

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

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

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

Documentation and Community

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

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out.go (1)

325-327: Consider wrapping the error for better debugging context

While the error handling is correct, consider wrapping the error to provide additional context about where the error occurred.

-		if _, err := k.BuildOutgoingTxBatch(ctx, from, receipt, amount, fee); err != nil {
+		if _, err := k.BuildOutgoingTxBatch(ctx, from, receipt, amount, fee); err != nil {
+			return fmt.Errorf("failed to build outgoing tx batch: %w", err)
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between bfb4a1a and b491f84.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out.go (1 hunks)
  • x/crosschain/keeper/outgoing_tx.go (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • x/crosschain/keeper/outgoing_tx.go
🔇 Additional comments (2)
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out.go (2)

321-323: LGTM: Clean implementation of origin token caching for IBC transfers

The implementation correctly handles caching of the total amount (transfer + fee) for IBC transfers when origin token is enabled.


321-327: Verify the impact of storage removal on existing functionality

The changes simplify storage handling, but let's verify there are no unintended consequences.

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the storage changes and their impact.


Based on the results, I can now generate the final response as we have sufficient information about the caching and batch-related functionality.

Storage changes are safe and aligned with the codebase design

The changes to storage handling are part of a well-structured caching system where:

  • The cache operations (SetCache, GetCache, DeleteCache) are properly implemented in the erc20 keeper
  • The caching is used consistently for both IBC transfers and bridge operations
  • The changes maintain the existing functionality while removing unnecessary storage operations

The modification in question is specifically handling the caching of token amounts for:

  1. Origin token transfers (originToken case)
  2. Outgoing transaction batches (else case)

Both paths are properly maintained, with the origin token case using the cache system and the batch case using the batch-specific storage methods.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for any remaining references to the old storage pattern
rg -g '!{*.md,*.mod,*.sum}' -A 3 'outgoing.*batch.*storage|batch.*storage|transaction.*storage' .

# Look for any tests that might need updating
rg -g '*_test.go' -A 3 'TestBuildOutgoingTxBatch|TestOutgoingTxBatch'

Length of output: 804


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for storage-related functions and their usage
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_ BuildOutgoingTxBatch($$$) {
  $$$
}'

# Look for related storage operations
rg -g '*.go' -B 2 -A 5 'SetCache|GetCache|DeleteCache' .

# Check for any other batch-related operations
rg -g '*.go' -B 2 -A 5 'outgoing.*batch|batch.*tx' .

Length of output: 27243

@fx0x55 fx0x55 merged commit b4ac384 into main Oct 24, 2024
11 checks passed
@fx0x55 fx0x55 deleted the fx0x55/cache-key branch October 24, 2024 05:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants