[TRA-654] add upgrade handler for v8.0.0 #2395
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@shrenujb has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 16 minutes and 25 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe pull request updates the upgrade handling mechanism of the application, transitioning from version 7.0.0 to 8.0.0. It replaces the previous upgrade handler and associated test files for version 7.0.0 with new implementations for version 8.0.0. This includes the addition of constants, variables, and functions for managing the upgrade process, ensuring the application effectively handles the new version's requirements and validates the upgrade process through corresponding tests. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/upgrade.go (2)
33-46: LGTM: Upgrade handler implementation looks good, with minor suggestions.The
CreateUpgradeHandlerfunction correctly implements the upgrade process. However, consider the following suggestions:
- Add a comment explaining the purpose of
lib.UnwrapSDKContextfor clarity.- Consider logging the result of the migration run.
Here's a suggested minor improvement:
func CreateUpgradeHandler( mm *module.Manager, configurator module.Configurator, listingKeeper listingkeeper.Keeper, ) upgradetypes.UpgradeHandler { return func(ctx context.Context, plan upgradetypes.Plan, vm module.VersionMap) (module.VersionMap, error) { // Unwrap the SDK context from the upgrade context sdkCtx := lib.UnwrapSDKContext(ctx, "app/upgrades") sdkCtx.Logger().Info(fmt.Sprintf("Running %s Upgrade...", UpgradeName)) initListingModuleState(sdkCtx, listingKeeper) newVM, err := mm.RunMigrations(ctx, configurator, vm) if err != nil { sdkCtx.Logger().Error(fmt.Sprintf("Failed to run migrations: %s", err)) return nil, err } sdkCtx.Logger().Info("Upgrade completed successfully") return newVM, nil } }This improvement adds comments and logs the result of the migration run.
1-46: Overall, the upgrade handler implementation is solid with room for minor improvements.The file successfully implements the upgrade handler for v7.1.0 as per the PR objectives. It initializes the listing module state and sets up the necessary parameters. The code structure is clean and follows expected patterns for upgrade handlers.
Key points:
- The implementation of
initListingModuleStatecould benefit from more flexible parameter setting and improved error handling.- The
CreateUpgradeHandlerfunction correctly sets up the upgrade process, but could use additional logging for better traceability.These suggested improvements would enhance the robustness and flexibility of the upgrade process without significantly altering the current implementation.
Consider implementing a more comprehensive logging strategy throughout the upgrade process. This could include logging the start and end of each major step, as well as any significant state changes. This would greatly aid in debugging and monitoring the upgrade process in production environments.
protocol/app/upgrades.go (1)
Line range hint
1-93: Summary: v7.1.0 upgrade successfully integrated, verify impact on upgrade process.The changes in this file successfully integrate the v7.1.0 upgrade into the application's upgrade mechanism. Key points:
- The v7.1.0 upgrade package is imported correctly.
- The Upgrades slice now includes the v7.1.0 upgrade.
- The setupUpgradeHandlers function has been updated to use the v7.1.0 upgrade handler.
These changes appear to be consistent with the expected pattern for introducing a new upgrade. However, the change in parameters passed to CreateUpgradeHandler (from PricesKeeper and VaultKeeper to ListingKeeper) may have implications on the upgrade process.
To ensure a smooth upgrade process:
- Verify that the v7.1.0 upgrade handler correctly uses ListingKeeper instead of PricesKeeper and VaultKeeper.
- Update any documentation related to the upgrade process to reflect the changes in v7.1.0.
- Consider adding comments in the code to explain the rationale behind the change from PricesKeeper and VaultKeeper to ListingKeeper, if not already present in the v7.1.0 upgrade package.
protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/upgrade_container_test.go (3)
22-38: LGTM: TestStateUpgrade function is well-structured.The function follows a clear and logical flow for testing the upgrade process. It sets up the testnet, performs pre-upgrade checks, triggers the upgrade, and then performs post-upgrade checks.
Consider adding error checks after
preUpgradeSetupsandpreUpgradeCheckscalls to ensure they complete successfully before proceeding with the upgrade:preUpgradeSetups(node, t) +require.NoError(t, err, "pre-upgrade setup failed") preUpgradeChecks(node, t) +require.NoError(t, err, "pre-upgrade checks failed")
40-49: Implement pre-upgrade and post-upgrade checks.The
preUpgradeSetups,preUpgradeChecks, andpostUpgradeChecksfunctions are currently empty or minimal. Please implement the necessary checks and setups for a comprehensive upgrade test.Consider adding TODO comments to track the implementation of these functions. For example:
func preUpgradeChecks(node *containertest.Node, t *testing.T) { // TODO: Implement pre-upgrade checks // Examples: // - Verify initial state // - Check specific module parameters }Would you like me to generate more detailed TODO comments or open a GitHub issue to track this task?
51-80: LGTM: postUpgradeListingModuleStateCheck function is comprehensive.The function thoroughly checks the listing module state after the upgrade, verifying both the listing vault deposit parameters and the markets hard cap. This ensures that the upgrade has correctly initialized the module state.
Consider adding more descriptive error messages to the
require.NoErrorandrequire.NotNilcalls. This will make debugging easier if a test fails. For example:-require.NoError(t, err) +require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to query listing vault deposit params") -require.NotNil(t, resp) +require.NotNil(t, resp, "Listing vault deposit params response is nil")Apply similar changes to the other error checks in this function.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- protocol/app/upgrades.go (2 hunks)
- protocol/app/upgrades/v7.0.0/upgrade_container_test.go (0 hunks)
- protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/constants.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/upgrade.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/upgrade_container_test.go (1 hunks)
💤 Files not reviewed due to no reviewable changes (1)
- protocol/app/upgrades/v7.0.0/upgrade_container_test.go
🔇 Additional comments (9)
protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/constants.go (4)
1-6: LGTM: Package declaration and imports are appropriate.The package name
v_7_1_0correctly reflects the version, and the imports are relevant to the upgrade process.
8-10: LGTM: Upgrade name constant is well-defined.The
UpgradeNameconstant is correctly set to "v7.1.0", which matches the package name and intended upgrade version.
1-17: LGTM: File structure and content are appropriate for upgrade definition.The file
constants.gois well-structured and contains the necessary elements for defining the v7.1.0 upgrade. It includes:
- Correct package name
- Relevant imports
- Upgrade name constant
- Upgrade variable with the required fields
The overall structure follows best practices for upgrade definition files in this project.
12-17: Verify if additional upgrade actions are needed.The
Upgradevariable is correctly structured. However, theAddedslice inStoreUpgradesis empty, suggesting no new stores are being added in this upgrade.Please confirm:
- Is it intentional that no new stores are being added?
- Are there any other upgrade actions that need to be included here?
To help verify the upgrade actions, you can run the following script:
This script will help identify any other files or code related to the v7.1.0 upgrade that might contain additional actions or changes.
✅ Verification successful
Upgrade Actions Verified Successfully
The
Upgradevariable is correctly structured, and no additional upgrade actions beyond setting theUpgradeNameare present in the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any upgrade-related changes in the codebase # Search for files related to v7.1.0 upgrade echo "Files related to v7.1.0 upgrade:" fd -t f "v7.1.0" # Search for potential upgrade actions in Go files echo "\nPotential upgrade actions:" rg --type go -i "upgrade.*v7.1.0" -g '!*test*'Length of output: 566
protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/upgrade.go (1)
3-14: LGTM: Import statements are well-organized and appropriate.The import statements are properly grouped and include all necessary packages for the implemented functionality.
protocol/app/upgrades.go (3)
6-6: LGTM: Import statement for v7.1.0 upgrade package added correctly.The new import statement is properly formatted and uses an appropriate alias. This change aligns with the upgrade from v7.0.0 to v7.1.0.
17-17: LGTM: v7.1.0 upgrade added to the Upgrades slice.The new upgrade
v7_1_0.Upgradehas been correctly added to the Upgrades slice. This change is consistent with the comment above the Upgrades variable.To ensure that the previous v7.0.0 upgrade has been removed, please run the following command:
This command will show the Upgrades slice definition and its contents. Verify that v7.0.0 is not present and v7.1.0 is the only upgrade listed.
✅ Verification successful
Verified: v7.1.0 upgrade correctly added and v7.0.0 upgrade successfully removed from the Upgrades slice.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that v7.0.0 upgrade has been removed and v7.1.0 upgrade is the only one present rg --type go 'Upgrades = \[\]upgrades\.Upgrade\{' -A 5 protocol/app/upgrades.goLength of output: 164
25-33: LGTM: Upgrade handler setup updated for v7.1.0, but verify parameter change.The upgrade handler setup has been correctly updated to use
v7_1_0.UpgradeNameandv7_1_0.CreateUpgradeHandler. However, there's a notable change in the parameters passed toCreateUpgradeHandler:
- Previously:
app.PricesKeeperandapp.VaultKeeper- Now:
app.ListingKeeperPlease confirm that this change in parameters is intentional and aligns with the requirements of the v7.1.0 upgrade. To verify this change, run the following command:
This will show the function signature for
CreateUpgradeHandlerin the v7.1.0 upgrade package. Ensure that it expectsListingKeeperinstead ofPricesKeeperandVaultKeeper.✅ Verification successful
Please run the following script to retrieve the complete
CreateUpgradeHandlerfunction signature:
Verified: Upgrade handler parameters correctly updated for v7.1.0.
The
CreateUpgradeHandlerfunction now correctly acceptslistingKeeperas per the v7.1.0 upgrade package. The change fromapp.PricesKeeperandapp.VaultKeepertoapp.ListingKeeperis intentional and aligns with the updated function signature.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the CreateUpgradeHandler function signature in v7.1.0 upgrade package rg --type go 'func CreateUpgradeHandler\(' protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/upgrade.goLength of output: 111
Script:
# #!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the full CreateUpgradeHandler function signature in v7.1.0 upgrade package rg --type go -A 10 'func CreateUpgradeHandler\(' protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/upgrade.goLength of output: 529
protocol/app/upgrades/v7.1.0/upgrade_container_test.go (1)
1-14: LGTM: Package declaration and imports are appropriate.The package name
v_7_1_0_testclearly indicates the version being tested, and the imports cover all necessary dependencies for the upgrade test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Heads up, we're going to use v8.0 for the release after v7.0.
https://dydx-team.slack.com/archives/C062DJ43996/p1727380961932299
shrenujb
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <shrenuj@dydx.exchange>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
protocol/app/upgrades/v8.0.0/upgrade.go (2)
16-31: Consider more graceful error handlingWhile panicking ensures that errors are not silently ignored, it might be too aggressive for this context. Consider returning errors instead, allowing the caller to decide how to handle them.
Here's a suggested refactor:
-func initListingModuleState(ctx sdk.Context, listingKeeper listingkeeper.Keeper) { +func initListingModuleState(ctx sdk.Context, listingKeeper listingkeeper.Keeper) error { // Set hard cap on listed markets err := listingKeeper.SetMarketsHardCap(ctx, 500) if err != nil { - panic(fmt.Sprintf("failed to set markets hard cap: %s", err)) + return fmt.Errorf("failed to set markets hard cap: %w", err) } // Set listing vault deposit params err = listingKeeper.SetListingVaultDepositParams( ctx, listingtypes.DefaultParams(), ) if err != nil { - panic(fmt.Sprintf("failed to set listing vault deposit params: %s", err)) + return fmt.Errorf("failed to set listing vault deposit params: %w", err) } + return nil }Consider making the markets hard cap configurable
The hard-coded value of 500 for the markets hard cap might benefit from being configurable. This would allow for easier adjustments in the future without requiring code changes.
Consider introducing a constant or configuration parameter for this value:
const DefaultMarketsHardCap = 500 func initListingModuleState(ctx sdk.Context, listingKeeper listingkeeper.Keeper, marketsHardCap uint32) error { err := listingKeeper.SetMarketsHardCap(ctx, marketsHardCap) // ... rest of the function }LGTM: Overall structure and functionality
The function successfully initializes the listing module state by setting the markets hard cap and listing vault deposit parameters. The logic is clear and concise.
33-46: LGTM: Overall structure and functionality of CreateUpgradeHandlerThe
CreateUpgradeHandlerfunction is well-structured and follows the expected pattern for creating an upgrade handler. It properly unwraps the SDK context, logs the upgrade execution, initializes the listing module state, and runs migrations.Consider adding error handling for initListingModuleState
The
initListingModuleStatefunction is called without checking its return value. If we implement the earlier suggestion to return errors instead of panicking, we should handle potential errors here.Here's a suggested modification:
func CreateUpgradeHandler( mm *module.Manager, configurator module.Configurator, listingKeeper listingkeeper.Keeper, ) upgradetypes.UpgradeHandler { return func(ctx context.Context, plan upgradetypes.Plan, vm module.VersionMap) (module.VersionMap, error) { sdkCtx := lib.UnwrapSDKContext(ctx, "app/upgrades") sdkCtx.Logger().Info(fmt.Sprintf("Running %s Upgrade...", UpgradeName)) - initListingModuleState(sdkCtx, listingKeeper) + if err := initListingModuleState(sdkCtx, listingKeeper); err != nil { + return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to initialize listing module state: %w", err) + } return mm.RunMigrations(ctx, configurator, vm) } }This change ensures that any errors from
initListingModuleStateare properly handled and propagated.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- protocol/app/upgrades.go (2 hunks)
- protocol/app/upgrades/v8.0.0/constants.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/app/upgrades/v8.0.0/upgrade.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/app/upgrades/v8.0.0/upgrade_container_test.go (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- protocol/app/upgrades.go
🔇 Additional comments (7)
protocol/app/upgrades/v8.0.0/constants.go (2)
3-6: Imports look goodThe imports are appropriate for the functionality of this file. The
storepackage is imported from the Cosmos SDK, and theupgradespackage is imported from the project's own codebase.
12-17: Verify upgrade actions and store additionsThe
Upgradevariable is structured correctly, but it doesn't include any specific upgrade actions. The emptyAddedslice inStoreUpgradessuggests that no new stores are being added in this upgrade.
- Please confirm if this is intentional. If new stores should be added, update the
Addedslice accordingly.- Consider if any additional upgrade actions are needed for v8.0.0. If so, they should be added to this
Upgradestruct.#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential missing upgrade actions or store additions # Test 1: Search for mentions of new stores or upgrades related to v8.0.0 echo "Searching for mentions of new stores or upgrades for v8.0.0:" rg --type go -e "new store.*v8\.0\.0" -e "upgrade.*v8\.0\.0" protocol/app # Test 2: Check for any TODO comments related to v8.0.0 upgrades echo "Checking for TODO comments related to v8.0.0 upgrades:" rg --type go "TODO.*v8\.0\.0" protocol/appprotocol/app/upgrades/v8.0.0/upgrade.go (2)
3-14: LGTM: Import statements are well-organized and appropriate.The import statements are properly grouped and include all necessary packages for the implemented functionality.
1-46: Overall assessment: Well-structured upgrade handler with minor improvement suggestionsThe
upgrade.gofile successfully implements the v8.0.0 upgrade handler, initializing the listing module state and running necessary migrations. The code is well-organized and follows expected patterns for upgrade handlers in the Cosmos SDK ecosystem.Key points:
- The
initListingModuleStatefunction properly sets up the listing module state.- The
CreateUpgradeHandlerfunction correctly creates and returns an upgrade handler.Suggested improvements:
- Implement more graceful error handling in
initListingModuleState.- Make the markets hard cap configurable for better flexibility.
- Add error handling for
initListingModuleStatein the upgrade handler.These changes will enhance the robustness and maintainability of the upgrade process.
protocol/app/upgrades/v8.0.0/upgrade_container_test.go (3)
18-22: LGTM: Constants are well-defined.The constants for BTC and ETH quantities are clearly named and have appropriate values for testing purposes.
24-40: LGTM: TestStateUpgrade function is well-structured.The TestStateUpgrade function follows a clear and logical flow for testing the upgrade process:
- Sets up the testnet
- Performs pre-upgrade checks
- Executes the upgrade
- Performs post-upgrade checks
Error handling and resource cleanup are properly implemented.
53-82: LGTM: postUpgradeListingModuleStateCheck is comprehensive.The postUpgradeListingModuleStateCheck function effectively verifies the post-upgrade state of the listing module:
- Checks the listing vault deposit parameters.
- Verifies the markets hard cap.
The function uses proper error handling and makes appropriate assertions using require statements.
| @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ | |||
| package v_8_0_0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent Upgrade Version in constants.go
The UpgradeName constant in protocol/app/upgrades/v8.0.0/constants.go is set to "v7.1.0", which does not align with the package name v_8_0_0 and the directory path v8.0.0. Please update the UpgradeName to "v8.0.0" to ensure consistency across the codebase.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify package name consistency with upgrade version
The package name v_8_0_0 and file path v8.0.0 suggest this is for version 8.0.0, but the UpgradeName constant (line 9) is set to "v7.1.0". Please ensure that the package name, file path, and upgrade version are consistent throughout the file and the entire upgrade process.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for inconsistencies in upgrade version across the codebase
# Test 1: Search for occurrences of both v7.1.0 and v8.0.0 in the upgrades directory
echo "Searching for v7.1.0 and v8.0.0 in upgrades directory:"
rg --type go -e "v7\.1\.0" -e "v8\.0\.0" protocol/app/upgrades
# Test 2: Check if there's a v7.1.0 directory in the upgrades folder
echo "Checking for v7.1.0 directory:"
fd -t d "v7.1.0" protocol/app/upgrades
# Test 3: Verify the upgrade name in other files referencing this upgrade
echo "Checking upgrade name references:"
rg --type go "UpgradeName.*v[78]\.1\.0" protocol/app
Length of output: 784
Changelist
Add an upgrade handler for v7.1.0 and the upgrade actions required for PML
Test Plan
Added upgrade container test
Author/Reviewer Checklist
state-breakinglabel.indexer-postgres-breakinglabel.PrepareProposalorProcessProposal, manually add the labelproposal-breaking.feature:[feature-name].backport/[branch-name].refactor,chore,bug.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Tests