refactor: hashchain interface improvements #156
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes across multiple files, primarily transitioning from an operation-based model to a transaction-based model. Key modifications include renaming and restructuring various types and methods to accommodate transactions instead of operations. This involves updating method signatures, enhancing error handling, and refining data structures, particularly in relation to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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: 24
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (33)
crates/common/src/transaction.rs (1)
8-11: Consider enhancing type safety and documentation.The
Transactionstruct could benefit from the following improvements:
- Consider using a newtype pattern for
idto prevent accidental mixing with other string identifiers- Add documentation comments explaining the purpose of each field and any invariants
+/// Represents a transaction in the hashchain with its unique identifier and entry data. #[derive(Clone, Serialize, Deserialize, Debug, PartialEq)] pub struct Transaction { + /// Unique identifier for the transaction pub id: String, + /// The actual hashchain entry containing the transaction data pub entry: HashchainEntry, }crates/common/src/digest.rs (1)
18-24: Implementation looks good with room for documentation.The method is well-structured, efficient, and consistent with the existing API. It's a valuable addition for handling multiple items, especially in the context of transaction processing.
Consider adding documentation to clarify usage:
+ /// Hash multiple items in sequence. + /// + /// # Arguments + /// * `items` - Slice of items that can be converted to byte slices + /// + /// # Returns + /// A new digest containing the hash of all items pub fn hash_items(items: &[impl AsRef<[u8]>]) -> Self {crates/da/src/memory.rs (1)
111-117: Consider optimizing clone operations for large transaction sets.While the implementation is correct, consider these performance optimizations:
- For
get_transactions, you could implement a custom Clone trait for Transaction that uses reference counting internally- For
submit_transactions, the current implementation is optimal as it needs ownership for storageAlso applies to: 120-123
crates/tests/src/lib.rs (2)
106-117: Refactor the account update logic for clarity and robustness.Several improvements could be made to this section:
- The comment mentions "5 random accounts" but the code continues even if some updates fail
- The error handling should be more robust in a test environment
- The
map_orusage with a static error message could be improved-if added_account_ids.len() >= 5 { - for _ in 0..5 { - let acc_id = added_account_ids - .get(rng.gen_range(0..added_account_ids.len())) - .map_or("Could not find random account id", |id| id.as_str()); - - let update_acc = - transaction_builder.add_random_key_verified_with_root(acc_id).commit(); - - match prover.clone().validate_and_queue_update(update_acc).await { - Ok(_) => (), - Err(e) => eprintln!("Failed to validate and queue update: {}", e), - }; - } -} +const MIN_ACCOUNTS_FOR_UPDATE: usize = 5; +const ACCOUNTS_TO_UPDATE: usize = 5; + +if added_account_ids.len() >= MIN_ACCOUNTS_FOR_UPDATE { + let mut successful_updates = 0; + while successful_updates < ACCOUNTS_TO_UPDATE { + let acc_id = added_account_ids + .get(rng.gen_range(0..added_account_ids.len())) + .expect("Index should be valid as we checked the length"); + + let update_acc = + transaction_builder.add_random_key_verified_with_root(acc_id).commit(); + + match prover.clone().validate_and_queue_update(update_acc).await { + Ok(_) => successful_updates += 1, + Err(e) => panic!("Failed to update account: {}", e), + } + } +}
78-117: Consider extracting magic numbers as constants.Several magic numbers in the test could be extracted as constants for better maintainability:
- Account creation range (1..=3)
- Sleep duration (5000ms)
- Number of accounts to update (5)
+const MIN_NEW_ACCOUNTS: usize = 1; +const MAX_NEW_ACCOUNTS: usize = 3; +const SLEEP_DURATION_MS: u64 = 5000; +const MIN_ACCOUNTS_FOR_UPDATE: usize = 5; +const ACCOUNTS_TO_UPDATE: usize = 5; -let num_new_accounts = rng.gen_range(1..=3); +let num_new_accounts = rng.gen_range(MIN_NEW_ACCOUNTS..=MAX_NEW_ACCOUNTS); -tokio::time::sleep(Duration::from_millis(5000)).await; +tokio::time::sleep(Duration::from_millis(SLEEP_DURATION_MS)).await;crates/node_types/prover/src/webserver.rs (2)
139-142: Consider removing unnecessary clones.The
clone()operations might be unnecessary here sinceTransactionRequestcould be moved into theTransactionstruct.Consider this more efficient approach:
- let transaction = Transaction { - id: update_input.id.clone(), - entry: update_input.entry.clone(), - }; + let transaction = Transaction { + id: update_input.id, + entry: update_input.entry, + };
Line range hint
143-153: Improve error handling granularity.The current error handling doesn't distinguish between validation errors (which should return 400) and internal errors (which should return 500). Consider matching on specific error types to provide more accurate status codes and detailed error messages.
Consider a pattern like this:
match session.validate_and_queue_update(transaction).await { Ok(_) => ( StatusCode::OK, "Entry update queued for insertion into next epoch", ) .into_response(), Err(e) => match e { // Assuming you have specific error types ValidationError => ( StatusCode::BAD_REQUEST, format!("Validation failed: {}", e), ), _ => ( StatusCode::INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, format!("Internal error: {}", e), ), } .into_response(), }crates/bin/src/cfg.rs (1)
Line range hint
1-264: Consider adding documentation for the operation → transaction transition.As part of the larger refactoring effort transitioning from operations to transactions, it would be helpful to:
- Update the documentation to reflect the new terminology
- Provide a migration guide for users who need to update their configuration
- Consider adding deprecation notices for the old terminology
crates/da/src/celestia.rs (3)
Line range hint
71-77: Fix inconsistent terminology in error message.The error message still refers to "operation namespace" while the codebase has moved to transaction terminology.
Apply this change:
- "Failed to create operation namespace from: '{}'", + "Failed to create transaction namespace from: '{}'",
Line range hint
171-202: Update remaining operation references in error messages.While the function has been properly renamed, some error messages still reference "operations" instead of "transactions".
Apply these changes:
- "getting operations from da layer: {}", e + "getting transactions from da layer: {}", e - "Failed to parse blob from height {} to operation: {:?}", + "Failed to parse blob from height {} to transaction: {:?}",
Line range hint
171-222: LGTM: Well-structured refactoring maintaining existing patterns.The transition to transactions maintains the codebase's existing error handling patterns, async implementation, and blob handling logic. The changes are focused and consistent.
Consider adding a comment explaining the relationship between transactions and blobs in the Celestia context, as this would help future maintainers understand the data model better.
crates/common/src/keys.rs (1)
134-141: Add unit tests for updatedsignandverify_signaturemethodsIncluding unit tests for the
signandverify_signaturemethods will help ensure that the newSignatureenum functions correctly for both key types.Would you like assistance in creating these unit tests?
crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/tests.rs (4)
97-105: Renameoperationstotransactionsfor clarityIn lines 97 to 105, the variable
operationsis used to store transactions created byops_builder. Since the code now uses transactions, consider renamingoperationstotransactionsto reflect this change accurately.
116-116: Rename variableoperationstotransactionsAt line 116, the variable
operationsis assigned the result ofcreate_mock_transactions(...). To align with the terminology change, consider renaming it totransactions.
148-148: Rename variabletransactionsfor consistencyAt line 148, the variable
transactionsis correctly named, but later in the loop, variables and comments may still refer to operations. Ensure all references are updated to reflect the change to transactions.
38-47: Consider handling of transaction queuing in testsIn the test starting at line 38, you're queuing the same transaction twice. If the system is expected to handle such cases by queuing duplicates, this is acceptable. Otherwise, consider adjusting the test to reflect realistic usage scenarios.
crates/common/src/test_utils.rs (4)
55-68: Consider storingservice_signing_keyfor future useIn the
register_servicemethod, theservice_signing_keyis generated but not stored or returned. If this key is needed for future operations, such as signing transactions or verifying signatures, consider storing it within theServicestruct or returning it from the function to ensure it can be accessed when required.
118-119: Avoid duplicate entries ininserted_keysThe check for
account.idinself.inserted_keysprevents duplicate insertions, but it might be more robust to verify against the actual tree state. Relying solely oninserted_keysmight not reflect the true state if the set becomes unsynchronized with the tree.Consider verifying the account's existence in the tree:
if self.tree.contains_key(&account.key_hash)? { return Err(anyhow!("{:?} already contained in tree", account.id)); }
255-259: Refactor to avoid panics wheninserted_keysis emptyIn
create_random_update, callingpanic!wheninserted_keysis empty is abrupt and can be improved. Instead, consider returning aResultto handle this case more gracefully.Modify the function signature and logic:
pub fn create_random_update(state: &mut TestTreeState, rng: &mut StdRng) -> Result<UpdateProof> { if state.inserted_keys.is_empty() { return Err(anyhow!("No keys have been inserted yet. Cannot perform update.")); } // ... rest of the function ... }
6-7: Remove unused imports to clean up codeThe imports of
ServiceChallengeandSignatureBundlefromoperationmay be unused after refactoring. Removing unused imports enhances code readability and reduces clutter.Verify if these imports are necessary. If not, remove them:
-use crate::{ - operation::{ServiceChallenge, ServiceChallengeInput, SignatureBundle}, - transaction::Transaction, -}; +use crate::{transaction::Transaction};crates/common/src/transaction_builder.rs (4)
86-88: Ensure unique keys for servicesYou're generating random signing keys for services, but there's a possibility of key collisions (though extremely rare). Consider checking for existing keys to ensure uniqueness.
Line range hint
186-188: Avoid using unstablelet elsesyntax and handle errors without panickingConsistently apply stable syntax and proper error handling throughout your code.
Refactor:
-let Some(account_signing_key) = self.account_keys.get(id).cloned() else { - panic!("No existing account key for {}", id) -}; +let account_signing_key = if let Some(key) = self.account_keys.get(id).cloned() { + key +} else { + return Err(format!("No existing account key for {}", id)); +};
85-88: Consider reusing keys instead of generating new random keys for servicesGenerating new random keys every time may not be necessary and could complicate testing. Consider reusing keys or providing the option to do so.
135-140: Use more secure hashing and signing practicesEnsure that the hashing and signing process follows best practices, especially if this code moves beyond testing. Consider using domain separation tags or context-specific hashing to prevent hash collisions.
crates/common/src/hashchain.rs (5)
67-71: Add documentation for thefrom_entrymethodConsider adding Rust documentation comments (
///) to thefrom_entrymethod to explain its purpose and usage. This will improve code readability and maintainability.
80-94: Consider renamingis_key_invalidtois_key_revokedfor clarityThe method
is_key_invalidchecks if a key has been revoked or not added. Renaming it tois_key_revokedmay more accurately reflect its purpose, enhancing code clarity.
176-186: Update error message to reflect all operation typesThe error message in the
validate_new_entrymethod states:"Previous hash for key operation must be the last hash - prev: {}, last: {}"Since this validation applies to all operations, not just key operations, consider modifying the message to:
"Previous hash for operation must be the last hash - prev: {}, last: {}"This change will provide clearer feedback when validation fails.
337-351: Validate the use ofSignature::Placeholderinwithout_signatureIn the
without_signaturemethod, aSignature::Placeholderis used:signature: Signature::Placeholder,Ensure that
Signature::Placeholderis an accepted and correctly handled variant in yourSignatureenum. If not, consider using anOption<Signature>type or a more appropriate placeholder to represent the absence of a signature.
353-355: Handle potential verification errors invalidate_signatureThe
validate_signaturemethod directly returns the result ofverifying_key.verify_signature(...). Consider adding context to any potential errors that may arise during signature verification to aid in debugging.For example:
verifying_key .verify_signature(self.hash.as_ref(), &self.signature_bundle.signature) .map_err(|e| anyhow!("Signature verification failed: {}", e))crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs (3)
312-313: Avoid unnecessary clone oftransactionIn the
execute_blockmethod, thetransactionvariable is already owned in the loop. Cloning it before passing it toprocess_transactionis unnecessary and can be avoided to improve performance and reduce memory overhead.Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary clone:
for transaction in transactions { - match self.process_transaction(transaction.clone()).await { + match self.process_transaction(transaction).await { Ok(proof) => proofs.push(proof), Err(e) => { // Log the error and continue with the next transaction
401-406: Rename variables for consistency with transactionsIn the
post_batch_loopmethod, the variableopsis used to refer to pending transactions, andop_countcounts the number of transactions. To maintain clarity and consistency with the updated transaction-based terminology, consider renamingopstotxs(ortransactions) andop_counttotx_count.Apply this diff to rename the variables:
let pending_transactions = { - let mut ops = self.pending_transactions.write().await; - std::mem::take(&mut *ops) + let mut txs = self.pending_transactions.write().await; + std::mem::take(&mut *txs) }; -let op_count = pending_transactions.len(); +let tx_count = pending_transactions.len(); // If there are pending transactions, submit them if !pending_transactions.clone().is_empty() { match self.da.submit_transactions(pending_transactions).await { Ok(submitted_height) => { info!( - "post_batch_loop: submitted {} operations at height {}", - op_count, submitted_height + "post_batch_loop: submitted {} transactions at height {}", + tx_count, submitted_height ); } Err(e) => { error!("post_batch_loop: Failed to submit transactions: {}", e); } } } else { debug!( "post_batch_loop: No pending transactions to submit at height {}", height ); }
459-470: Use pattern matching ergonomics introduced in Rust 1.62The code uses an
elseblock with aletstatement for pattern matching, which can be simplified using theif letormatchconstructs for better readability.Apply this diff to improve the pattern matching:
let hc_response = self.get_hashchain(&transaction.id).await?; - let Found(mut hc, _) = hc_response else { - bail!("Hashchain not found for id: {}", transaction.id) - }; + match hc_response { + Found(mut hc, _) => { + hc.add_entry(transaction.entry.clone())?; + } + _ => { + bail!("Hashchain not found for id: {}", transaction.id) + } + }This change uses a
matchstatement to handle theFoundvariant explicitly, improving code clarity.crates/common/src/tree.rs (1)
245-246: Enhance error message for clarityConsider including the actual IDs in the error message to aid debugging. This provides more context when the assertion fails.
Apply this change to improve the error message:
ensure!( transaction.id == id.as_str(), - "Id of transaction needs to be equal to operation id" + format!("Transaction ID '{}' does not match operation ID '{}'", transaction.id, id) );
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (18)
crates/bin/src/cfg.rs(3 hunks)crates/common/src/digest.rs(1 hunks)crates/common/src/hashchain.rs(4 hunks)crates/common/src/keys.rs(4 hunks)crates/common/src/lib.rs(1 hunks)crates/common/src/operation.rs(4 hunks)crates/common/src/test_utils.rs(8 hunks)crates/common/src/transaction.rs(1 hunks)crates/common/src/transaction_builder.rs(15 hunks)crates/common/src/tree.rs(12 hunks)crates/da/src/celestia.rs(8 hunks)crates/da/src/lib.rs(2 hunks)crates/da/src/memory.rs(5 hunks)crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs(13 hunks)crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/tests.rs(6 hunks)crates/node_types/prover/src/webserver.rs(5 hunks)crates/storage/src/redis.rs(1 hunks)crates/tests/src/lib.rs(3 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- crates/storage/src/redis.rs
🔇 Additional comments (52)
crates/common/src/lib.rs (2)
6-6: LGTM! New transaction module aligns with refactoring goals.
The addition of the transaction module alongside the existing operation module supports the transition to a transaction-based model while maintaining backward compatibility.
14-15: Verify test coverage after test_ops removal.
The addition of transaction_builder under the test_utils feature flag is appropriate. However, let's verify that all test scenarios previously covered by test_ops are now handled by the new module.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the test coverage by examining the content of the test files and the transaction_builder module.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
Test coverage has been properly maintained with transaction_builder
The new transaction_builder module effectively replaces the previous test_ops functionality with a more structured approach. The module provides:
- Comprehensive builder methods for all hashchain operations (register_service, create_account, add_key, revoke_key, add_data)
- Built-in key management for both services and accounts
- Transaction verification capabilities
- Support for both signed and unsigned data operations
The tests in prover/tests.rs demonstrate proper integration and usage of the new module, covering the core transaction scenarios.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test coverage transition from test_ops to transaction_builder
# Search for any remaining references to test_ops to ensure complete migration
echo "Checking for any remaining test_ops references:"
rg "test_ops"
# Search for test files that might need updates
echo "Checking test files that might need updates:"
fd -e rs -e toml test
Length of output: 318
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of test_utils.rs and transaction_builder
echo "Content of test_utils.rs:"
cat crates/common/src/test_utils.rs
echo -e "\nContent of transaction_builder module:"
fd -e rs transaction_builder -x cat {}
echo -e "\nChecking tests that might use transaction_builder:"
rg -A 5 "transaction_builder" crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/tests.rs
Length of output: 22015
crates/da/src/lib.rs (3)
4-4: LGTM: Import change aligns with transaction model transition.
The update from Operation to Transaction import is consistent with the broader refactoring effort.
70-70: Verify trait implementation updates and height handling.
The method signature change is consistent with the transaction model transition while preserving the height return value concept.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all implementations of DataAvailabilityLayer to verify they've been updated
# to use the new submit_transactions method signature
# Search for trait implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'impl $_ for $_ {
$$$
async fn submit_$_($$$) -> Result<u64> {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
# Search for any remaining references to submit_operations
rg "submit_operations" --type rust69-69: Verify trait implementation updates across the codebase.
The method signature change in the DataAvailabilityLayer trait requires updates to all implementing types.
✅ Verification successful
All trait implementations have been updated correctly
The verification shows that all implementations of DataAvailabilityLayer have been properly updated to use the new get_transactions method signature:
InMemoryDataAvailabilityLayerincrates/da/src/memory.rsCelestiaConnectionincrates/da/src/celestia.rs
Both implementations match the trait definition in crates/da/src/lib.rs with the correct signature: async fn get_transactions(&self, height: u64) -> Result<Vec<Transaction>>.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all implementations of DataAvailabilityLayer to verify they've been updated
# to use the new get_transactions method signature
# Search for trait implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'impl $_ for $_ {
$$$
async fn get_$_($$$) -> Result<Vec<$_>> {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
# Search for any remaining references to get_operations
rg "get_operations" --type rust
Length of output: 143
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more specific search for implementations
rg "impl.*DataAvailabilityLayer" -A 10 --type rust
# Also search for struct definitions that might implement this trait
rg "struct.*\{" -A 5 --type rust
# And specifically look for get_transactions implementations
rg "async fn get_transactions" --type rust
Length of output: 18792
crates/common/src/digest.rs (1)
18-24: Verify the usage patterns of hash_items.
Since this is part of a transition from operations to transactions, let's verify how this new method is being used in the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the transaction-related code since the initial search didn't reveal the Transaction struct.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response about the usage of hash_items:
hash_items is correctly used in the transaction processing flow
The method is used in several critical paths that are part of the transaction processing:
- In hashchain operations (
crates/common/src/hashchain.rs): Used to hash operations with previous hash to maintain chain integrity - In service challenge verification (
crates/common/src/tree.rs): Used to hash credentials for service verification - In test utilities (
crates/common/src/test_utils.rs): Used to simulate service signing in test scenarios
The transition from operations to transactions maintains the same hashing patterns and security model, with hash_items being used consistently across the codebase for combining multiple byte slices into a single digest.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of hash_items to understand implementation patterns
rg "hash_items" --type rust -B 2 -A 2
# Look for potential Transaction struct definitions that might use this
ast-grep --pattern 'struct Transaction {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 2702
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for transaction-related code
rg "Transaction" --type rust -B 2 -A 2
# Search for potential uses of hash_items in transaction context
ast-grep --pattern 'fn $_(transaction: $_) {
$$$
hash_items($$$)
$$$
}'
# Look for potential transaction processing functions
ast-grep --pattern 'fn process_transaction($$$) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 27672
crates/da/src/memory.rs (5)
5-5: LGTM: Import change aligns with the transaction model transition.
15-15: LGTM: Block struct field updated consistently.
22-22: LGTM: InMemoryDataAvailabilityLayer field updated consistently.
54-54: LGTM: Block production logic updated consistently.
The changes maintain proper thread safety and logging while transitioning to the transaction model.
Also applies to: 61-61, 65-67
111-123: Verify interface compatibility across the codebase.
Let's ensure all callers have been updated to use the new transaction-based interface.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual usage context in these files to ensure the interface transition is complete.
Interface transition is complete and consistent
The verification shows that:
- The transaction-based interface is properly defined in the
DataAvailabilityLayertrait - All implementations (Memory and Celestia) correctly implement the new interface
- The prover module is using the new transaction-based methods correctly
- No traces of the old operation-based interface remain in the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to the old operation-based interface
echo "Checking for old operation interface usage..."
rg -l 'get_operations|submit_operations' --type rust
# Search for usage of the new transaction interface
echo "Verifying new transaction interface adoption..."
rg -l 'get_transactions|submit_transactions' --type rust
Length of output: 433
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual usage context in the identified files
echo "Checking interface usage in prover/mod.rs:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 'get_transactions|submit_transactions' crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs
echo -e "\nChecking interface usage in lib.rs:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 'get_transactions|submit_transactions' crates/da/src/lib.rs
echo -e "\nChecking interface usage in celestia.rs:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 'get_transactions|submit_transactions' crates/da/src/celestia.rs
# Also check for any trait definitions to understand the interface contract
echo -e "\nChecking trait definitions:"
ast-grep --pattern 'trait $_ {
$$$
fn get_transactions($$$) -> $$$;
$$$
}'
Length of output: 3106
crates/tests/src/lib.rs (1)
79-82: LGTM! Clean transition to transaction-based approach.
The initialization and usage of TransactionBuilder for service registration is clear and follows the new transaction-based model effectively.
crates/node_types/prover/src/webserver.rs (3)
16-19: LGTM! Imports are properly organized.
The new imports align well with the transition to a transaction-based model.
58-61: LGTM! TransactionRequest is a good name choice.
While there was a previous suggestion to rename this to TransactionInput, the current name TransactionRequest is actually more appropriate as it better represents its role as an API request payload.
106-106: LGTM! Route path follows REST conventions.
The endpoint path /transaction is well-chosen and aligns with REST best practices.
crates/bin/src/cfg.rs (2)
118-119: LGTM! Clean formatting improvement.
The reformatting enhances readability while maintaining the same functionality.
236-237: LGTM! Clean formatting improvement.
The reformatting enhances readability while maintaining the same functionality.
crates/da/src/celestia.rs (4)
7-7: LGTM: Import aligns with transaction model transition.
The new import correctly supports the transition from operations to transactions.
36-36: LGTM: Config field renamed consistently.
The renaming from operation_namespace_id to transaction_namespace_id maintains consistency with the new transaction-based model while preserving the existing type and default value.
Also applies to: 45-45
53-53: LGTM: Struct field renamed consistently.
The renaming from operation_namespace to transaction_namespace maintains consistency with the new transaction-based model.
205-222: LGTM: Submit transaction implementation properly updated.
The function has been thoroughly updated to use transaction terminology while maintaining the existing error handling and blob creation logic.
crates/common/src/operation.rs (5)
1-2: Approved: Proper inclusion of error handling macros
The use of anyhow::{bail, ensure, Result} ensures consistent error handling throughout the codebase.
6-6: Approved: Correct import of key-related types
Importing Signature, SigningKey, and VerifyingKey from crate::keys is appropriate given their utilization in the code.
12-33: Approved: Transition to struct variants in Operation enum enhances clarity
Refactoring the Operation enum to use struct variants with named fields improves readability and maintainability by making the data structures more explicit and self-documenting.
43-43: Approved: Use of Signature type for stronger type safety
Replacing Vec<u8> with the dedicated Signature type in HashchainSignatureBundle and SignatureBundle enhances type safety and clarity in representing signatures.
Also applies to: 61-61
50-50: Verify the use of Signature::Placeholder in HashchainSignatureBundle
In HashchainSignatureBundle::empty_with_idx, the signature field is set to Signature::Placeholder. Please confirm that Signature::Placeholder is an appropriate value for this context and that it won't lead to unintended behavior during signature verification processes.
crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/tests.rs (4)
42-47: Verify handling of duplicate transactions in validate_and_queue_update
In lines 42 and 44, the same transaction is validated and queued twice. The assertion at line 47 checks that pending_transactions.len() is 2, suggesting that duplicate transactions are allowed in the pending queue. Is this the intended behavior? If duplicates should be prevented, consider updating the implementation or the test accordingly.
191-191: Consistency in variable naming for transactions
At line 191, you're using transactions, which is consistent with the new model. Ensure that throughout the test, all variables and comments reflect this nomenclature.
2-6: Verify that all necessary imports are included
At lines 2 and 6, you've updated imports to include TransactionBuilder, Proof, and create_mock_signing_key. Ensure that any other necessary modules or dependencies related to transactions are also imported.
51-51: Confirm test function name reflects new functionality
At line 51, the test function is renamed to test_process_transactions(). Verify that all test functions have been renamed appropriately to reflect the transition to transactions.
crates/common/src/test_utils.rs (2)
86-87: Handle potential key overwrites in signing_keys
When inserting the signing_key into self.signing_keys using id as the key, there's a possibility of overwriting an existing entry if the id already exists. To prevent accidental key overwrites, consider checking if the id is already present before insertion.
Implement a check before insertion:
if self.signing_keys.contains_key(&id) {
return Err(anyhow!("Signing key for ID '{}' already exists", id));
} else {
self.signing_keys.insert(id.clone(), signing_key.clone());
}220-226: Ensure correct service signature in account creation
When simulating the service signing account creation credentials, verify that the signature is generated using the correct data and key. This ensures the authenticity and integrity of the account creation process.
Run the following script to confirm the correctness of the signature generation:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about these signatures to understand their usage and verify correctness.
Let me check the test utility context to understand if these signatures are used in test scenarios.
Let me try a different approach to understand the test utility context.
Service signature verification is correctly implemented
The signature generation in both cases (create_account and create_random_insert) is correctly implemented:
-
The hash is consistently generated using the same required components:
- Account ID (either direct or random string)
- Service ID
- Verifying key bytes
-
The signature is properly created using the service's signing key on the hash bytes
This is a test utility file used for creating test accounts and the signature implementation follows the expected pattern for account creation verification.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the service signs the correct hash during account creation.
# Expected: Only occurrences where 'service.sk.sign' is called with the correct hashed data.
rg $'let signature = service\\.sk\\.sign\\(&hash\\.to_bytes\\(\\)\\);'
Length of output: 246
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more context around the signature generations
rg -B 5 -A 2 'let signature = service\.sk\.sign\(&hash\.to_bytes\(\)\);'
Length of output: 1149
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the full context of test_utils.rs to understand the purpose of these signatures
rg -B 10 -A 10 'fn create_test_' crates/common/src/test_utils.rs
Length of output: 66
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of test_utils.rs to understand the context
cat crates/common/src/test_utils.rs
Length of output: 9167
crates/common/src/transaction_builder.rs (2)
129-131:
Avoid using unstable let else syntax and handle errors without panicking
The let else syntax is currently unstable and not available in the stable Rust compiler. Additionally, using panic! for error handling can lead to crashes in production. Consider using if let or match statements and returning a Result to handle errors gracefully.
Refactor using if let and return a Result:
-pub fn create_account(
- &mut self,
- id: &str,
- service_id: &str,
- signing_key: SigningKey,
-) -> UncommittedTransaction {
- let Some(service_signing_key) = self.service_keys.get(service_id) else {
- panic!("No existing service found for {}", service_id)
- };
+pub fn create_account(
+ &mut self,
+ id: &str,
+ service_id: &str,
+ signing_key: SigningKey,
+) -> Result<UncommittedTransaction, String> {
+ let service_signing_key = if let Some(key) = self.service_keys.get(service_id) {
+ key
+ } else {
+ return Err(format!("No existing service found for {}", service_id));
+ };
// ... rest of the code ...
- UncommittedTransaction { ... }
+ Ok(UncommittedTransaction { ... })
}Adjust the function signature to return a Result. This change promotes better error handling and compatibility with the stable compiler.
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
159-161:
Avoid using unstable let else syntax and handle errors without panicking
Similar to earlier, the use of let else is unstable, and panicking on error isn't recommended. Refactor to use if let and return a Result.
Refactor:
-pub fn add_random_key_verified_with_root(&mut self, id: &str) -> UncommittedTransaction {
- let Some(account_signing_key) = self.account_keys.get(id).cloned() else {
- panic!("No existing account key for {}", id)
- };
+pub fn add_random_key_verified_with_root(&mut self, id: &str) -> Result<UncommittedTransaction, String> {
+ let account_signing_key = if let Some(key) = self.account_keys.get(id).cloned() {
+ key
+ } else {
+ return Err(format!("No existing account key for {}", id));
+ };
// ... rest of the code ...
- UncommittedTransaction { ... }
+ Ok(UncommittedTransaction { ... })
}Adjust the return type and handle errors gracefully.
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
crates/common/src/hashchain.rs (2)
241-241: Ensure signature_bundle is appropriately handled in serialization
The addition of the signature_bundle field to HashchainEntry is significant. Verify that all serialization and deserialization processes account for this new field to prevent potential issues with data integrity or backward compatibility.
61-63:
Ensure removal of id from Hashchain does not affect functionality
The Hashchain struct no longer includes the id field, and the empty method has been updated accordingly. Please verify that any code depending on Hashchain.id is updated to prevent potential runtime errors or bugs.
You can run the following script to find all references to Hashchain.id in the codebase:
crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs (4)
452-475: Ensure all operation variants are handled in the match statement
In the validate_and_queue_update method, the match statement handles several variants of the Operation enum. Verify that all possible variants are accounted for and that no variant is unintentionally omitted. This ensures that all types of transactions are properly validated and queued.
If there are additional variants in the Operation enum, consider adding them to the match arms or handling a default case.
71-73: Initialization and declaration of pending_transactions
The pending_transactions field and its initialization correctly reflect the transition to transactions. The use of Arc<RwLock<Vec<Transaction>>> ensures thread-safe shared access, which is appropriate here.
Also applies to: 116-116
307-308: Correctly updated execute_block method signature
The execute_block method signature has been updated to accept a vector of Transactions, which aligns with the new transaction-based model. The change is consistent with the modifications elsewhere in the code.
237-238: Finalize new epoch with all_transactions
Collecting all transactions from buffered_transactions and finalizing a new epoch is correctly implemented. This ensures that all pending transactions are included in the epoch processing.
crates/common/src/tree.rs (12)
1-1: Appropriate inclusion of ensure from anyhow crate
The addition of ensure enhances error handling by allowing concise conditional checks that return errors when conditions are not met.
14-17: Necessary imports added for new functionality
The imports of HashchainEntry, ServiceChallenge, ServiceChallengeInput, and Transaction are appropriate and required for the implemented changes.
73-73: Addition of new_entry field in InsertProof
Adding new_entry to the InsertProof struct correctly encapsulates the new hashchain entry involved in an insertion operation.
80-83: Verification of new_entry in InsertProof::verify
The method constructs a Hashchain from new_entry and verifies the membership proof, ensuring the integrity of the newly inserted entry.
100-100: Addition of new_entry field in UpdateProof
Adding new_entry to the UpdateProof struct appropriately represents the latest entry in the updated hashchain.
117-117: Appending new_entry to hashchain_after_update
Correctly updates the hashchain by adding new_entry before verifying the update proof.
141-144: Method signatures updated to reflect transaction-based model
The SnarkableTree trait methods have been updated to process Transaction and HashchainEntry, aligning with the new transaction-based approach and improving clarity.
227-248: Implementation of process_transaction method
The process_transaction method has been updated to handle Transaction instead of Operation. The logic correctly matches different Operation variants within the Transaction and processes them accordingly.
244-247: Validation of transaction ID using ensure! macro
The use of ensure! asserts that transaction.id matches id.as_str(), enhancing error handling by providing a clear error message if the IDs do not match.
Line range hint 340-369: Consistency in update method implementation
The update method correctly updates the hashchain with the new_entry and verifies the update proof. The addition of new_entry in the UpdateProof struct ensures that the updated state is accurately captured.
284-284:
Verify service challenge signature
Ensure that the service_pubkey.verify_signature method correctly verifies the signature over the hash of the concatenated IDs and key. This is crucial for validating the authenticity of the account creation request.
Consider reviewing the implementation of verify_signature and confirm that the hashing and signature verification steps align with the security requirements.
278-279:
Confirm correct usage of key.as_bytes()
Ensure that key is of a type that implements as_bytes(). If key is a PublicKey or similar type, verify that as_bytes() returns the intended byte representation.
To verify the type and usage of key, you can check its definition:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the context gathered, I can now provide a final response:
as_bytes() usage is correct and safe
The code shows that id, service_id, and key are all used in a consistent manner where as_bytes() is called on them. The imports and usage patterns indicate these are string-like or byte-convertible types, and the Digest::hash_items function is designed to work with byte slices. The implementation is correct and follows the expected pattern used throughout the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find the definition of 'Operation::CreateAccount' to confirm the type of 'key'
# Expected: The 'key' parameter should be of a type that implements 'as_bytes()'
rg --type rust --context 5 --word-regex '\bOperation::CreateAccount\b' --glob '!target/'
Length of output: 534
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the definition of 'key' in the tree.rs file
rg -A 5 -B 5 --type rust "let hash = Digest::hash_items" crates/common/src/tree.rs
# Also search for any struct or type definitions related to key in the same file
ast-grep --pattern 'struct $_ {
$$$
key: $_,
$$$
}'
Length of output: 144
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try to find the context around the hash calculation
rg -B 10 -A 5 "Digest::hash_items.*key\.as_bytes" crates/common/src/tree.rs
# Also look for the type definition or usage of 'key' variable
rg -B 5 -A 5 "\bkey\b.*:.*" crates/common/src/tree.rs
Length of output: 3759
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's find the type definition of 'id' and 'service_id' to understand the context better
rg -B 5 -A 15 "fn create_account" crates/common/src/tree.rs
# Also look for the definition of KeyHash to understand its implementation
rg -B 3 -A 3 "impl.*KeyHash" crates/common/src/tree.rs
Length of output: 118
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look for the entire function containing the hash calculation
rg -B 20 -A 20 "Digest::hash_items\(&\[id\.as_bytes\(\)" crates/common/src/tree.rs
# Also search for any imports or type definitions at the top of the file
rg -B 2 -A 2 "^use" crates/common/src/tree.rs
Length of output: 2498
jns-ps
force-pushed
the
hashchain-interface-improvements
branch
from
7bfeccc to
7262f89
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (14)
crates/node_types/prover/src/webserver.rs (1)
123-143: Consider optimizing the transaction handling.While the function correctly implements the transaction-based model, there are a few potential improvements:
- Unnecessary cloning:
- let transaction = Transaction { - id: update_input.id.clone(), - entry: update_input.entry.clone(), - }; + let transaction = Transaction { + id: update_input.id, + entry: update_input.entry, + };
The error handling could be more specific about validation failures.
The documentation could be enhanced to describe:
- Expected transaction structure
- Validation rules
- Possible error conditions
crates/da/src/celestia.rs (2)
53-53: Consider standardizing error message formatting.The connection struct changes look good, but there's a minor inconsistency in error message formatting:
- Line 72 uses: "Failed to create transaction namespace from: '{}'"
- Line 91 uses: "Failed to create namespace from '{}'"
Consider standardizing the error message format:
- "Failed to create transaction namespace from: '{}'", + "Failed to create transaction namespace from '{}'",Also applies to: 71-84
208-225: Consider enhancing error handling for transaction submission.The current implementation could be improved in two ways:
- Include transaction identifiers in error messages for better debugging
- Consider handling partial successes instead of failing all transactions when one fails
Here's a suggested approach for more detailed error messages:
.map(|transaction| { + let tx_id = transaction.id(); // Assuming Transaction has an id() method let data = bincode::serialize(transaction) - .context(format!("Failed to serialize transaction {:?}", transaction)) + .context(format!("Failed to serialize transaction {} {:?}", tx_id, transaction)) .map_err(|e| { DataAvailabilityError::GeneralError(GeneralError::ParsingError( e.to_string(), )) })?; Blob::new(self.transaction_namespace, data) .context(format!( - "Failed to create blob for transaction {:?}", - transaction + "Failed to create blob for transaction {} {:?}", + tx_id, transaction ))crates/common/src/transaction_builder.rs (2)
133-140: Consider adding input validation for account creation credentialsThe account creation process includes proper signing of credentials, but could benefit from additional input validation.
Consider adding length checks and validation:
+ if id.is_empty() || service_id.is_empty() { + return Err("ID and service_id cannot be empty".into()); + } let hash = Digest::hash_items(&[ id.as_bytes(), service_id.as_bytes(), &signing_key.verifying_key().as_bytes(), ]);
Line range hint
21-336: Consider implementing a comprehensive error handling strategyWhile the transition to a transaction-based model is well-implemented, the codebase would benefit from a consistent error handling strategy. Currently, there are multiple locations using
panicandexpectwhich should be replaced with proper error handling.Recommendations:
- Create a dedicated error type for the transaction module
- Implement proper error propagation throughout the builder
- Consider using the
thiserrorcrate for error handling- Add comprehensive error documentation
Example error type:
#[derive(Debug, thiserror::Error)] pub enum TransactionError { #[error("Entity not found: {0}")] NotFound(String), #[error("Invalid data: {0}")] InvalidData(String), #[error("Tree error: {0}")] TreeError(#[from] TreeError), }crates/common/src/hashchain.rs (3)
111-174: Consider reducing duplication in operation methodsThe operation methods (
register_service,create_account,add_key,revoke_key,add_data) follow a similar pattern of creating an entry and adding it to the chain.Consider extracting the common pattern into a helper method:
impl Hashchain { fn add_operation<F>(&mut self, create_entry: F) -> Result<HashchainEntry> where F: FnOnce() -> HashchainEntry, { let entry = create_entry(); self.add_entry(entry.clone())?; Ok(entry) } }This would simplify the operation methods, for example:
pub fn add_key( &mut self, key: VerifyingKey, signing_key: &SigningKey, key_idx: usize, ) -> Result<HashchainEntry> { self.add_operation(|| { HashchainEntry::new_add_key(key, self.last_hash(), signing_key, key_idx) }) }
337-351: Enhance hash validation error messageThe error message in
validate_hashcould be more informative by including the actual and expected hash values.Consider updating the error message:
ensure!( self.hash == pristine_entry_hash, - "Hashchain entry has incorrect hash" + "Hashchain entry has incorrect hash. Expected: {}, Got: {}", + pristine_entry_hash, + self.hash );
353-355: Add context to signature validation errorThe signature validation error from
verify_signaturecould include the key index for better debugging.Consider wrapping the error:
- verifying_key.verify_signature(self.hash.as_ref(), &self.signature_bundle.signature) + verifying_key + .verify_signature(self.hash.as_ref(), &self.signature_bundle.signature) + .map_err(|e| anyhow!("Signature validation failed for key at index {}: {}", + self.signature_bundle.key_idx, e))crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs (2)
71-73: Consider pre-allocating vector capacitySince this vector will store pending transactions that will be processed in batches, consider pre-allocating the vector with an estimated capacity to reduce reallocations.
- pending_transactions: Arc::new(RwLock::new(Vec::new())), + pending_transactions: Arc::new(RwLock::new(Vec::with_capacity(1000))), // Adjust capacity based on expected batch sizeAlso applies to: 116-116
449-476: Improve error handling and code organization
- The error message could be more descriptive about why transactions can't be queued.
- Consider extracting the validation logic into a separate method for better maintainability.
if !self.cfg.batcher { - bail!("Batcher is disabled, cannot queue transactions"); + bail!("Cannot queue transactions: batcher is disabled in configuration"); } + self.validate_transaction(&transaction).await?; + let mut pending = self.pending_transactions.write().await; + pending.push(transaction); + Ok(()) + } + + async fn validate_transaction(&self, transaction: &Transaction) -> Result<()> { match transaction.entry.operation { Operation::RegisterService { .. } | Operation::CreateAccount { .. } => { Hashchain::empty().add_entry(transaction.entry.clone())? } Operation::AddKey { .. } | Operation::RevokeKey { .. } | Operation::AddData { .. } => { let hc_response = self.get_hashchain(&transaction.id).await?; let Found(mut hc, _) = hc_response else { bail!("Hashchain not found for id: {}", transaction.id) }; hc.add_entry(transaction.entry.clone())?; } - }; - - let mut pending = self.pending_transactions.write().await; - pending.push(transaction); - Ok(()) + }crates/common/src/tree.rs (3)
73-73: Consider adding documentation for struct fields.The transition from operation-based to entry-based fields improves clarity, but adding documentation would help explain the purpose and lifecycle of these fields.
Add doc comments for the fields:
pub struct InsertProof { pub non_membership_proof: NonMembershipProof, pub new_root: Digest, pub membership_proof: SparseMerkleProof<Hasher>, + /// The new hashchain entry being inserted pub new_entry: HashchainEntry, }Also applies to: 100-100
141-144: Add documentation for trait methods.The trait changes improve thread safety and align with the transaction model. Consider adding documentation to explain the purpose and requirements of each method.
Add doc comments for the trait methods:
pub trait SnarkableTree: Send + Sync { + /// Processes a transaction and returns a proof of the operation fn process_transaction(&mut self, transaction: Transaction) -> Result<Proof>; + /// Inserts a new hashchain entry and returns an insert proof fn insert(&mut self, key: KeyHash, entry: HashchainEntry) -> Result<InsertProof>; + /// Updates an existing hashchain with a new entry and returns an update proof fn update(&mut self, key: KeyHash, entry: HashchainEntry) -> Result<UpdateProof>;
278-284: Consider extracting service challenge verification logic.The service challenge verification logic could be moved to a separate method for better maintainability and reusability.
+ fn verify_service_challenge( + id: &str, + service_id: &str, + key: &[u8], + service_pubkey: &PublicKey, + challenge_signature: &Signature, + ) -> Result<()> { + let hash = Digest::hash_items(&[id.as_bytes(), service_id.as_bytes(), key]); + service_pubkey.verify_signature(&hash.to_bytes(), challenge_signature) + }crates/common/src/test_utils.rs (1)
55-68: Clarify variable naming for service keys to avoid confusionThe variables
service_challenge_keyandservice_signing_keyhave similar names but serve different purposes, which may lead to confusion. Consider renaming them to more descriptive names, such aschallenge_signing_keyandservice_signing_key, to improve code clarity.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (16)
crates/bin/src/cfg.rs(4 hunks)crates/common/src/hashchain.rs(4 hunks)crates/common/src/lib.rs(1 hunks)crates/common/src/operation.rs(4 hunks)crates/common/src/test_utils.rs(8 hunks)crates/common/src/transaction.rs(1 hunks)crates/common/src/transaction_builder.rs(14 hunks)crates/common/src/tree.rs(12 hunks)crates/da/src/celestia.rs(7 hunks)crates/da/src/lib.rs(2 hunks)crates/da/src/memory.rs(5 hunks)crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs(14 hunks)crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/tests.rs(4 hunks)crates/node_types/prover/src/webserver.rs(5 hunks)crates/storage/src/redis.rs(1 hunks)crates/tests/src/lib.rs(3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (8)
- crates/bin/src/cfg.rs
- crates/common/src/lib.rs
- crates/common/src/operation.rs
- crates/common/src/transaction.rs
- crates/da/src/lib.rs
- crates/da/src/memory.rs
- crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/tests.rs
- crates/storage/src/redis.rs
🔇 Additional comments (31)
crates/node_types/prover/src/webserver.rs (5)
16-19: LGTM: Import changes align with the new transaction model.
The new imports are well-organized and properly support the transition to a transaction-based model.
58-61: LGTM: TransactionRequest struct is well-defined.
The struct appropriately represents a transaction request with necessary fields and derives the required traits. The name TransactionRequest is more descriptive than the previously suggested TransactionInput as it clearly indicates its role in the API.
Line range hint 82-88: LGTM: OpenAPI documentation is consistent.
The API documentation has been properly updated to reflect the new transaction-based model, with correct path definitions and component schemas.
106-106: LGTM: Route name follows REST conventions.
The endpoint /transaction better reflects RESTful resource naming compared to the previous /update-entry.
123-143: Verify API compatibility with existing clients.
The transition from operations to transactions represents a breaking change in the API. Please ensure that:
- All clients are prepared for this change
- Migration documentation is available
- Consider versioning the API if backward compatibility is needed
crates/da/src/celestia.rs (3)
7-7: LGTM: Import statement is correctly added.
The new import aligns with the codebase transition from operations to transactions.
36-36: LGTM: Config field renamed consistently.
The renaming from operation_namespace_id to transaction_namespace_id maintains consistency with the codebase transition while preserving the existing functionality.
Also applies to: 45-45
Line range hint 171-205: LGTM: get_transactions implementation is robust.
The implementation includes proper error handling, logging, and efficient filtering of invalid transactions.
crates/common/src/transaction_builder.rs (3)
94-102: LGTM: Secure service registration implementation
The service registration properly handles both challenge and signing keys, with appropriate key separation and signature verification.
30-34:
Replace expect with proper error handling in commit
The commit method uses expect which can cause panics. This was previously flagged in reviews and should be addressed.
Refactor to handle errors gracefully:
- pub fn commit(self) -> Transaction {
+ pub fn commit(self) -> Result<Transaction, Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
self.builder
.tree
- .process_transaction(self.transaction.clone())
- .expect("Processing transaction should work");
+ .process_transaction(self.transaction.clone())?;198-202:
Replace panic with proper error handling in tree access
This is a duplicate of a previously identified issue. The code still uses panic for error handling when accessing the tree.
crates/common/src/hashchain.rs (3)
1-11: LGTM: Clean structural changes
The simplified Hashchain struct and enhanced HashchainEntry with signature_bundle align well with the transaction-based model transition.
Also applies to: 241-241
67-71: LGTM: Improved initialization and key validation
The from_entry constructor and reversed key validation in is_key_invalid are well-implemented improvements.
Also applies to: 80-94
176-209: Verify the validation logic completeness
The validation logic in validate_new_entry needs careful review to ensure all edge cases are covered.
Let's verify the validation logic coverage:
crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs (2)
38-39: LGTM: Documentation updates are consistent
The documentation changes accurately reflect the transition from operations to transactions in the configuration struct.
Also applies to: 48-48
400-424: LGTM: Efficient implementation of batch posting
The implementation efficiently handles the pending transactions using std::mem::take and provides good logging at different levels.
crates/common/src/tree.rs (3)
1-1: LGTM! Import changes align with new transaction-based model.
The addition of ensure macro and Transaction type supports the codebase's transition to a transaction-based model with improved error handling.
Also applies to: 17-17
244-247: LGTM! Good addition of transaction ID verification.
The explicit verification ensures transaction integrity by checking that the operation ID matches the transaction ID.
Line range hint 308-369: LGTM! Insert and update methods properly adapted for HashchainEntry.
The changes maintain the existing batch processing functionality while transitioning to the new entry-based model.
crates/tests/src/lib.rs (2)
96-100: Previous review comment still applies: Improve error handling in tests
The past review comment about enhancing error handling is still applicable here. Consider propagating errors or using assertions to ensure test failures are properly detected.
115-117: Previous review comment still applies: Improve error handling in tests
The earlier suggestion to improve error handling remains relevant for this code segment. Proper error handling helps in identifying issues during tests.
crates/common/src/test_utils.rs (10)
6-7: Updated imports are appropriate for new functionalities
The inclusion of ServiceChallenge, ServiceChallengeInput, SignatureBundle, and Transaction in the imports aligns with the new transaction-based model and is necessary for the updated methods.
30-30: Changed inserted_keys to use String for consistency
Updating inserted_keys to HashSet<String> ensures consistency with the use of account identifiers (id) throughout the code, which enhances readability and maintainability.
36-38: Added id field to TestAccount improves account identification
Including pub id: String in the TestAccount struct allows for straightforward tracking and manipulation of accounts using their identifiers.
84-111: create_account method implementation is correct and aligns with new model
The changes in the create_account method, including the updated signature and the new mechanism for signing account creation credentials, correctly reflect the transition to the transaction-based model.
118-129: Ensure account existence check is reliable
Using self.inserted_keys.contains(&account.id) may not accurately reflect whether the account is indeed present in the tree due to potential desynchronization. It's safer to check directly against the tree to ensure the account is present before attempting an insertion.
140-145: Verify that hashchain is not empty before unwrapping
Using .unwrap() on account.hashchain.last() could cause a panic if the hashchain is empty. Although it's likely that the hashchain has entries at this point, consider adding a check or handling the None case to enhance robustness.
220-226: Correctly simulate external service signing account creation credentials
The code accurately simulates an external service signing the account creation credentials, which is essential for testing account creation in a realistic scenario.
231-240: create_account call within create_random_insert aligns with new model
The use of Hashchain::empty().create_account(...) correctly reflects the transaction-based approach and ensures that random accounts are created consistently within tests.
255-260: Safe retrieval of a random key from inserted_keys
The method securely retrieves a random key from inserted_keys, ensuring that updates are performed on valid accounts. The prior check for an empty set prevents potential panics.
269-272: Avoid redundant .unwrap() after ok_or_else
Using .ok_or_else(...).unwrap() is redundant because ok_or_else produces a Result, and immediately unwrapping it negates the benefit of error handling. Instead, propagate the error using the ? operator for cleaner error handling.
jns-ps
force-pushed
the
hashchain-interface-improvements
branch
from
7262f89 to
a79348c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
crates/common/src/operation.rs (1)
102-108: Inconsistent error message wording.The error messages for empty ID and service_ID use different suffixes:
- "when creating account service" vs "when creating account service"
Consider standardizing the error message format:
- bail!("id must not be empty when creating account service"); + bail!("id must not be empty when creating account"); - bail!("service_id must not be empty when creating account service"); + bail!("service_id must not be empty when creating account");
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
crates/common/src/operation.rs(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
crates/common/src/operation.rs (5)
1-6: LGTM! Appropriate imports for error handling.
The addition of anyhow macros and the Signature type import align well with the enhanced error handling and signature management changes.
12-33: Excellent restructuring of Operation variants!
The transition to named fields from tuple-style structs significantly improves code clarity and maintainability. The consistent structure and clear documentation for each variant make the code more self-documenting.
43-43: Great improvement in signature type safety!
The transition from Vec<u8> to a dedicated Signature type enhances type safety and makes the API more explicit about its expectations.
Also applies to: 50-50, 61-61
85-89: LGTM! Clean pattern matching in get_public_key.
The implementation effectively handles all variants with clear and consistent pattern matching.
Line range hint 12-119: Verify transaction model integration.
The Operation enum changes are part of a broader transition to a transaction-based model. Let's verify the integration with the transaction handling code.
✅ Verification successful
The shell script results show comprehensive integration between Operation and Transaction handling across the codebase. Let me verify the transaction model integration by checking the actual transaction structure and builder:
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response since we have comprehensive evidence of proper transaction model integration:
Operation changes are properly integrated with transaction handling
The codebase shows proper integration between Operations and Transactions:
- Transaction struct in
transaction.rscorrectly wraps HashchainEntry containing Operations - TransactionBuilder provides infrastructure for creating and managing transactions
- Operations are validated and processed in multiple components:
- Tree validation in
tree.rs - Hashchain validation in
hashchain.rs - Prover transaction handling in
prover/mod.rs
- Tree validation in
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the integration with transaction handling code
# Look for transaction-related code that might need updates
# Check for Transaction struct usage
echo "Checking Transaction struct usage..."
rg -l "struct Transaction"
# Check for Operation usage in transaction context
echo "Checking Operation usage in transaction context..."
rg -A 3 "Operation" --type rust
# Check for potential transaction processing code
echo "Checking transaction processing..."
rg -l "process_transaction|handle_transaction"
Length of output: 9763
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check transaction structure and builder implementation
echo "Checking Transaction structure..."
rg -A 10 "struct Transaction" --type rust
echo "Checking TransactionBuilder..."
rg -A 10 "struct TransactionBuilder" --type rust
echo "Checking transaction validation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'fn validate($$$) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 3689
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Transactionstruct for improved transaction handling.hash_itemsmethod for batch hashing in theDigeststruct.TransactionBuilderfor service registration and account creation.Improvements
Bug Fixes
Tests
TransactionBuilder, streamlining test logic.