feat(x/crosschain): recover execute claimEvent #811
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant updates to various components of the Ethereum contract ecosystem, primarily focusing on 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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim_test.go (1)
22-22: LGTM! Consider adding test cases for error reason.The event signature update correctly reflects the addition of the
_errReasonparameter, aligning with the broader changes to enhance error reporting across the codebase.Consider adding test cases that verify the packing/unpacking of event data with various error reasons to ensure the new parameter is handled correctly.
Example test case structure:
func TestExecuteClaimEvent_PackUnpack(t *testing.T) { executeClaimABI := crosschain.NewExecuteClaimABI() testCases := []struct { name string sender common.Address nonce *big.Int chain string errReason string }{ { name: "with error reason", sender: common.HexToAddress("0x123"), nonce: big.NewInt(1), chain: ethtypes.ModuleName, errReason: "invalid signature", }, // Add more test cases } // Implement test logic }x/crosschain/keeper/attestation_handler.go (1)
37-47: Consider standardizing error message format.The implementation is solid with proper use of cache context for atomic operations and consistent error handling across all claim types. However, there's a minor inconsistency in error message formatting.
Consider standardizing the error message format in the default case:
- executeErr = sdkerrors.ErrInvalidRequest.Wrapf("invalid claim type: %s", claim.GetType()) + executeErr = sdkerrors.ErrInvalidRequest.Wrapf("event type: %s", claim.GetType())This would make it consistent with the error message format in
AttestationHandler.solidity/contracts/bridge/ICrosschain.sol (1)
69-70: LGTM: Enhanced error reporting improves debugging capabilitiesThe addition of
_errReasonto the event signature is a valuable enhancement that provides better context for failed claim executions, making it easier to diagnose issues in cross-chain operations.Consider documenting common error reasons in the interface comments to ensure consistent error messaging across implementations.
event ExecuteClaimEvent( address indexed _sender, uint256 _eventNonce, string _chain, + /// @dev Common error reasons: + /// - "invalid chain" + /// - "invalid event nonce" + /// - "execution failed" string _errReason );precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim.go (1)
87-92: Consider adding error message length validationThe error handling implementation looks good, but consider adding validation for the error message length to prevent excessive gas costs in case of very long error messages.
Consider applying this improvement:
func (m ExecuteClaimABI) NewExecuteClaimEvent(sender common.Address, eventNonce *big.Int, dstChain string, executeErr error) (data []byte, topic []common.Hash, err error) { errReason := "" if executeErr != nil { - errReason = executeErr.Error() + // Limit error message length to prevent excessive gas costs + errMsg := executeErr.Error() + const maxErrLength = 256 + if len(errMsg) > maxErrLength { + errMsg = errMsg[:maxErrLength] + } + errReason = errMsg } return evmtypes.PackTopicData(m.Event, []common.Hash{sender.Hash()}, eventNonce, dstChain, errReason) }tests/contract/crosschain_test.sol.go (1)
Line range hint
466-469: Consider enhancing error handling for claim recoveryGiven that this PR aims to recover execute claimEvent functionality, the current implementation could benefit from:
- More specific error types for different failure scenarios
- Explicit handling of recovery cases
- Logging or events for tracking claim execution status
Consider wrapping the error returns to provide more context:
func (_CrosschainTest *CrosschainTestTransactor) ExecuteClaim(opts *bind.TransactOpts, _chain string, _eventNonce *big.Int) (*types.Transaction, error) { - return _CrosschainTest.contract.Transact(opts, "executeClaim", _chain, _eventNonce) + tx, err := _CrosschainTest.contract.Transact(opts, "executeClaim", _chain, _eventNonce) + if err != nil { + return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to execute claim for chain %s and nonce %s: %w", _chain, _eventNonce, err) + } + return tx, nil }Also applies to: 476-479, 483-486
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
contract/bridge_fee_oracle.sol.go(1 hunks)contract/icrosschain.sol.go(4 hunks)precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim.go(2 hunks)precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim_test.go(1 hunks)precompiles/types/expected_keepers.go(1 hunks)solidity/contracts/bridge/ICrosschain.sol(1 hunks)tests/contract/crosschain_test.sol.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/attestation_handler.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- contract/bridge_fee_oracle.sol.go
🔇 Additional comments (13)
precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim_test.go (1)
22-22: Verify consistent implementation of the updated event signature.
Since this is a breaking change in the event signature, we should verify that all related code has been updated accordingly.
x/crosschain/keeper/attestation_handler.go (3)
30-33: LGTM! Well-structured error handling improvement.
The separation of preExecuteErr and executeErr provides better error granularity, allowing callers to distinguish between claim retrieval and execution failures. The early return pattern is clean and follows Go best practices.
48-51: LGTM! Proper atomic operation handling.
The commit logic correctly ensures atomic operations by only committing on successful execution. The return statement properly maintains the separation of concerns between pre-execution and execution errors.
30-51: Verify consistent error handling across callers.
The change from single to dual error returns is significant. Let's verify that all callers properly handle both error types.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate a final response since I have enough information about the error handling pattern and its usage:
Dual error return pattern is consistently implemented
The dual error return pattern (preExecuteErr, executeErr) is properly handled across the codebase:
- The
ExecuteClaimmethod is the only place using this specific pattern, which is appropriate since it has unique two-phase execution requirements - All callers properly handle the errors:
- Integration tests check for both errors via
NoErrorassertions - Precompile layer properly propagates both errors through the EVM bridge
- Contract bindings maintain the error semantics
- Integration tests check for both errors via
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all callers of ExecuteClaim to verify proper error handling
# Search for ExecuteClaim function calls
rg -t go "ExecuteClaim\(" --context 5
# Search for any similar dual-error patterns in the codebase for consistency
rg -t go "\) \(.*Err,.*Err error\)" --context 3
Length of output: 37246
solidity/contracts/bridge/ICrosschain.sol (1)
69-70: Breaking change: Event signature modification requires careful deployment coordination
The addition of the _errReason parameter to ExecuteClaimEvent is a breaking change that affects event filtering and contract interactions. This enhancement improves error reporting but requires coordination during deployment.
Let's verify the impact on existing event listeners and contracts:
precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim.go (1)
58-62: Verify alignment with ICrosschain interface changes
The enhanced error handling with separate preExecuteErr and executeErr looks good. This change allows for more granular error reporting and aligns with the updated event signature.
Let's verify the alignment with the contract interface:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the executeClaim function signature since it wasn't visible in the previous results.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
The error handling changes align correctly with the contract interface
The changes in error handling are verified to be correct because:
- The Solidity interface
ICrosschain.soldefines the event with the error reason parameter:event ExecuteClaimEvent(address indexed _sender, uint256 _eventNonce, string _chain, string _errReason) - The keeper implementation in
x/crosschain/keeper/attestation_handler.gocorrectly returns bothpreExecuteErrandexecuteErr - The event emission properly includes the error information from
executeErrin the event parameters
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the ICrosschain interface matches these changes
# Check the event signature in the contract
rg -A 2 "event ExecuteClaimEvent"
# Check the execute claim function signature
ast-grep --pattern 'function executeClaim($$$) $$$'
Length of output: 1750
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for executeClaim function definition in Solidity files
rg -A 3 "function executeClaim"
# Search for ExecuteClaim method in Go files to verify the error handling pattern
rg -A 3 "func.*ExecuteClaim.*error"
Length of output: 19163
x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go (1)
115-117: LGTM! Improved error handling with clear separation of concerns.
The changes enhance error handling by separately validating preliminary checks (preErr) and execution errors (executeErr). This separation provides better visibility into where failures occur during claim execution.
precompiles/types/expected_keepers.go (1)
30-30: LGTM! Consider adding documentation for error returns.
The change to return two errors improves error handling granularity, which aligns well with the PR's objective of recovering execute claimEvent functionality.
Consider adding documentation to clarify the meaning of each error return (e.g., pre-execution vs execution errors).
Let's verify the consistent implementation across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the results from the shell scripts:
- Found the implementation in
x/crosschain/keeper/attestation_handler.go:
func (k Keeper) ExecuteClaim(ctx sdk.Context, eventNonce uint64) (preExecuteErr, executeErr error) {
externalClaim, preExecuteErr := k.GetPendingExecuteClaim(ctx, eventNonce)
if preExecuteErr != nil {
return preExecuteErr, nil
}
k.DeletePendingExecuteClaim(ctx, eventNonce)
// ...
}- Found callers handling both errors correctly:
- In
precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim.go:
preExecuteErr, executeErr := crosschainKeeper.ExecuteClaim(ctx, args.EventNonce.Uint64())
if preExecuteErr != nil {
return preExecuteErr
}- Found test cases in
x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go:
preErr, executeErr := suite.Keeper().ExecuteClaim(suite.Ctx, externalClaim.GetEventNonce())
suite.Require().NoError(preErr)
suite.Require().NoError(executeErr)Implementation and error handling are consistent across the codebase
The implementation in attestation_handler.go clearly shows:
- First error (preExecuteErr) is for pending claim retrieval issues
- Second error (executeErr) is for execution-related issues
All callers properly handle both error returns, making the change safe and well-implemented.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for implementations and callers of ExecuteClaim
# to ensure they handle both error returns correctly
# Find ExecuteClaim implementations
echo "Checking ExecuteClaim implementations:"
ast-grep --pattern 'func $$$ExecuteClaim(ctx $_, eventNonce $_) (error, error)'
# Find ExecuteClaim callers
echo "Checking ExecuteClaim callers:"
rg -A 3 'ExecuteClaim\('
Length of output: 17745
tests/contract/crosschain_test.sol.go (3)
Line range hint 39-44: LGTM: Proper deprecation notices
The deprecation notices for CrosschainTestABI and CrosschainTestBin are well documented with clear migration paths to use CrosschainTestMetaData. This aligns with the codebase's move towards centralized metadata management.
Line range hint 1-1: Verify no manual modifications to generated file
Since this is a generated file (as indicated by the header comment), please ensure that all changes are made to the Solidity source file and then regenerated, rather than modified directly in this file.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any manual modifications to the generated file
# Look for the generation command in build files
rg -l "abigen|solc" -g "Makefile*"
rg -l "abigen|solc" -g "*.sh"
# Check git history for manual modifications
git log -p tests/contract/crosschain_test.sol.go | grep -C5 "^[+-]" | grep -v "// Code generated"35-35: Verify the bytecode generation process
The bytecode has been significantly modified, which is more extensive than what would be expected for just recovering the executeClaim functionality. Please verify that the bytecode was properly generated from the Solidity source.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the provided context and generate additional verification scripts to understand the bytecode changes better.
The previous output showed the Makefile and compile.sh contain relevant information, but we need to see their content to understand how the contract is being compiled and if the bytecode generation is correct.
Let me check the Solidity contract source to verify if the bytecode changes are legitimate.
Bytecode changes are legitimate and properly generated
The bytecode changes in tests/contract/crosschain_test.sol.go are legitimate because:
- The Solidity source file was newly added in the same PR (commit 509f4cd)
- The bytecode was generated through a proper compilation process as shown in
contract/compile.sh:- Uses correct solc version (^0.8.0)
- Compiles with yarn in the solidity directory
- Uses abigen 1.12.0 to generate the Go bindings
- The contract includes the
executeClaimfunction which aligns with the PR objective of "recover execute claimEvent"
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the contract source matches the bytecode
# Look for the original Solidity contract file
fd -e sol -t f crosschain_test
# Check if there are any other contract files that might be related
rg -l "contract CrosschainTest" -g "*.sol"
Length of output: 37443
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for the original Solidity contract file and compilation scripts
fd -e sol crosschain_test
fd -e sh compile
# Check the compilation command in the Makefile
rg -l "abigen|solc" -g "Makefile*"
# Check if there are any test files that might show the contract deployment
rg -l "DeployCrosschainTest" -g "*.go"
# Look for the original contract implementation
rg -l "contract CrosschainTest" -g "*.sol"
Length of output: 277
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of compilation related files
cat Makefile | grep -A5 -B5 'solc\|abigen'
cat contract/compile.sh
Length of output: 2691
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the Solidity contract source
cat solidity/contracts/test/CrosschainTest.sol
# Check if there are any recent changes to the contract
git log -p solidity/contracts/test/CrosschainTest.sol
Length of output: 7345
contract/icrosschain.sol.go (2)
740-740: LGTM: Error reason field added to event structure
The addition of ErrReason field to ICrosschainExecuteClaimEvent enhances error reporting capabilities.
744-746: Verify event signature consistency
The event signature has been updated consistently across Filter, Watch, and Parse functions. Let's verify the event hash matches the new signature.
Also applies to: 761-763, 803-805
✅ Verification successful
Event signature is consistent across all implementations
The verification shows that:
- The event signature
ExecuteClaimEvent(address indexed _sender, uint256 _eventNonce, string _chain, string _errReason)is consistently defined in the ABI and used across all related functions - The event hash
0x67ddf3796d30bb96cc50ccd9d322ab53317f5c6cac5860f3137894ee70ed0053is consistently used in all three functions: Filter, Watch, and Parse - The struct definition
ICrosschainExecuteClaimEventand its usage in iterators and event handlers align with the event signature - The test file
execute_claim_test.goconfirms the expected event signature
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the event signature hash is correct for the updated event definition
# Expected: Hash should match 0x67ddf3796d30bb96cc50ccd9d322ab53317f5c6cac5860f3137894ee70ed0053
# Search for the Solidity event definition
ast-grep --pattern 'event ExecuteClaimEvent(address indexed _sender, uint256 _eventNonce, string _chain, string _errReason)'
# Calculate the event signature hash
echo -n "ExecuteClaimEvent(address indexed _sender,uint256 _eventNonce,string _chain,string _errReason)" | \
sha3sum -a keccak256
Length of output: 332
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to verify the event signature consistency
# Search for all occurrences of ExecuteClaimEvent in the codebase
rg -A 2 "ExecuteClaimEvent" --type go
# Also search for the event hash to ensure it's consistent
rg "0x67ddf3796d30bb96cc50ccd9d322ab53317f5c6cac5860f3137894ee70ed0053"
Length of output: 11736
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
ExecuteClaimEventto include an error reason for better context during event handling.Bug Fixes
ExecuteClaimfunction, allowing for more detailed feedback on execution status.Chores