Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

storage refs - readability & gas impv [SLT-353] #3303

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 18, 2024

Conversation

parodime
Copy link
Collaborator

@parodime parodime commented Oct 17, 2024

  • Improve references to bridgeTxDetails[transactionId] throughout the contract
  • Theory is that storage refs of the main struct will be readable & efficient, so will try this approach first (borrowing the ‘$’ labeling convention from Cortex)
  • If storage ref approach does not work out, use dedicated declared vars

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Improved code readability and maintainability in the FastBridgeV2 contract by reducing redundancy in accessing transaction details.
    • Updated comments for better clarity without changing core functionality.

@parodime parodime requested a review from ChiTimesChi as a code owner October 17, 2024 15:09
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 17, 2024

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the FastBridgeV2 contract by introducing a local variable $ to streamline access to bridgeTxDetails[transactionId]. This change enhances code readability and maintainability by reducing redundancy in function implementations, specifically within the dispute, refund, canClaim, prove, and claim functions. The updates also include minor comment adjustments for clarity, while the core functionality of the contract remains unchanged.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
packages/contracts-rfq/contracts/FastBridgeV2.sol Introduced local variable $ for bridgeTxDetails[transactionId] in multiple functions, enhancing readability and maintainability. Minor comment adjustments made.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

needs-go-generate-agents

Suggested reviewers

  • trajan0x

🐰 In the code where bridges flow,
A little change makes clarity grow.
With $ we keep things neat and bright,
Each function shines, a pure delight!
So hop along, let’s code with cheer,
For every line brings us near! 🐇


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

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

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

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

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

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

Other keywords and placeholders

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

Documentation and Community

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

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 17, 2024

Changes to gas cost

Generated at commit: 3d4570fbfe442a2b10fdff55b153b2edd09369c8, compared to commit: 6415acd9b2b00fe36026abd7812096d131fc0719

🧾 Summary (50% most significant diffs)

Contract Method Avg (+/-) %
FastBridgeV2 canClaim
claim(bytes)
claim(bytes,address)
dispute
-130 ✅
-528 ✅
-510 ✅
-308 ✅
-4.14%
-1.04%
-0.97%
-0.98%

Full diff report 👇
Contract Deployment Cost (+/-) Method Min (+/-) % Avg (+/-) % Median (+/-) % Max (+/-) % # Calls (+/-)
FastBridgeV2 2,999,412 (-23,231) canClaim
claim(bytes)
claim(bytes,address)
dispute
prove(bytes,bytes32)
prove(bytes32,bytes32,address)
refund
3,011 (-130)
43,252 (-528)
46,123 (-510)
31,104 (-308)
35,494 (-79)
32,025 (-79)
47,599 (-58)
-4.14%
-1.21%
-1.09%
-0.98%
-0.22%
-0.25%
-0.12%
3,011 (-130)
50,231 (-528)
51,852 (-510)
31,104 (-308)
35,811 (-79)
32,060 (-79)
51,624 (-58)
-4.14%
-1.04%
-0.97%
-0.98%
-0.22%
-0.25%
-0.11%
3,011 (-130)
50,767 (-528)
52,388 (-510)
31,104 (-308)
35,518 (-79)
32,061 (-79)
51,785 (-58)
-4.14%
-1.03%
-0.96%
-0.98%
-0.22%
-0.25%
-0.11%
3,011 (-130)
58,247 (-528)
58,618 (-510)
31,104 (-308)
36,470 (-79)
32,061 (-79)
55,971 (-58)
-4.14%
-0.90%
-0.86%
-0.98%
-0.22%
-0.25%
-0.10%
12 (0)
6 (0)
6 (0)
6 (0)
68 (0)
68 (0)
12 (0)

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.99067%. Comparing base (791b0ef) to head (d0be8f4).
Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##              master       #3303         +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage   93.56415%   91.99067%   -1.57349%     
===================================================
  Files             94          59         -35     
  Lines           2455        1286       -1169     
  Branches         356         160        -196     
===================================================
- Hits            2297        1183       -1114     
+ Misses           149         100         -49     
+ Partials           9           3          -6     
Flag Coverage Δ
packages 90.44834% <ø> (ø)
solidity 98.07692% <100.00000%> (+2.27566%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Oct 17, 2024

Deploying sanguine-fe with  Cloudflare Pages  Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit: d0be8f4
Status:⚡️  Build in progress...

View logs

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants