refactor: use interface call evm #887
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces significant architectural changes to the crosschain and ERC20 modules by removing direct dependencies on specific contract-related components. The modifications focus on enhancing the flexibility of keeper interactions by introducing a new Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant Caller
participant Keeper
participant EVMKeeper
participant Contract
Caller->>Keeper: Method Call with Caller Context
Keeper->>EVMKeeper: Execute with Caller
EVMKeeper->>Contract: Perform Contract Interaction
Contract-->>EVMKeeper: Return Response
EVMKeeper-->>Keeper: Return Result
Keeper-->>Caller: Return Final Result
Possibly related PRs
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
Finishing Touches
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: 3
🔭 Outside diff range comments (3)
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out.go (1)
Update
BuildOutgoingTxBatchcall in msg_server.go to usecallerparameterThe function signature has been updated correctly, but one call site needs to be fixed:
x/crosschain/keeper/msg_server.go:357: Changes.BuildOutgoingTxBatch(ctx, s.evmKeeper, sender, msg.Dest, msg.Amount, msg.BridgeFee)to usecallerparameter instead ofs.evmKeeper🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
237-250: EnsureBuildOutgoingTxBatchnow accepts thecallerparameterWith
calleradded toCrosschainBaseCoinand passed toBuildOutgoingTxBatch, please ensure:
BuildOutgoingTxBatchhas been updated to acceptcaller.- All other calls to
BuildOutgoingTxBatchhave been updated to includecaller.Use the script below to confirm:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that `BuildOutgoingTxBatch` includes `caller` in definitions and calls. # Check function definition ast-grep --pattern $'func ($_).BuildOutgoingTxBatch(ctx $_, caller contract.Caller, $$$) ($_|$_, error) { $$$ }' --lang go # Check for calls without 'caller' rg --no-heading --line-number 'BuildOutgoingTxBatch\(ctx,' --glob '*.go' | rg -v 'BuildOutgoingTxBatch\(ctx, caller'Length of output: 386
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find the function definition ast-grep --pattern $'func ($_).BuildOutgoingTxBatch(ctx $_, $$$) ($_|$_, error) { $$$ }' --lang go # Get context of the msg_server call rg -B 5 -A 5 'BuildOutgoingTxBatch\(ctx, s\.evmKeeper' x/crosschain/keeper/msg_server.go # Look for any other variants of the call rg --no-heading --line-number 'BuildOutgoingTxBatch' --glob '*.go'Length of output: 1030
x/crosschain/keeper/send_to_fx.go (1)
Update calls to
BaseCoinToEvmto use proper caller parameterThe following calls to
BaseCoinToEvmneed to be updated to use a propercontract.Callerparameter instead ofk.evmKeeper:
x/crosschain/keeper/many_to_one.go:142x/crosschain/keeper/many_to_one.go:162🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
16-48: UpdateSendToFxExecutedto includecallerparameterThe function
SendToFxExecutednow includescaller contract.Caller:
- Ensure that the method signature is updated in interfaces or base classes.
- Update all calls to
SendToFxExecutedto include thecallerargument.To verify, run:
Confirm
BaseCoinToEvmacceptscallerAt line 48,
k.erc20Keeper.BaseCoinToEvmis called withcaller. Ensure that:
- The method
BaseCoinToEvmhas been updated to includecaller.- All calls to
BaseCoinToEvmthroughout the codebase have been updated accordingly.Use the script below:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that `SendToFxExecuted` definitions and calls include `caller`. # Check function definition ast-grep --pattern $'func ($_).SendToFxExecuted(ctx $_, caller contract.Caller, $$$) error { $$$ }' --lang go # Check for calls without 'caller' rg --no-heading --line-number 'SendToFxExecuted\(ctx,' --glob '*.go' | rg -v 'SendToFxExecuted\(ctx, caller'Length of output: 221
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that `BaseCoinToEvm` includes `caller` in definitions and calls. # Check function definition ast-grep --pattern $'func ($_).BaseCoinToEvm(ctx $_, caller contract.Caller, $$$) ($_|$_, error) { $$$ }' --lang go # Check for calls without 'caller' rg --no-heading --line-number 'BaseCoinToEvm\(ctx,' --glob '*.go' | rg -v 'BaseCoinToEvm\(ctx, caller'Length of output: 569
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for SendToFxExecuted with a broader pattern ast-grep --pattern 'func $$.SendToFxExecuted' --lang go # Search for interface definitions rg --type go "interface.*\{" -A 10 | rg -A 10 "SendToFxExecuted|BaseCoinToEvm" # Check evmKeeper type rg --type go "evmKeeper.*contract\.Caller"Length of output: 1407
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find SendToFxExecuted implementations with different pattern rg --type go -A 5 "func.*SendToFxExecuted" # Check if evmKeeper implements or is related to contract.Caller rg --type go -A 5 "type.*evmKeeper"Length of output: 537
precompiles/crosschain/bridge_call.go (1)
Line range hint
87-91: Enhance error handling for bridge call operations.The bridge call operation involves complex state changes across EVM and native chain. Consider adding more detailed error context and ensuring proper state cleanup on failure.
Add error context and cleanup:
-nonce, err := crosschainKeeper.BridgeCallBaseCoin(ctx, vmCaller, sender, args.Refund, args.To, baseCoins, args.Data, args.Memo, args.QuoteId, args.GasLimit, fxTarget, originTokenAmount) +nonce, err := crosschainKeeper.BridgeCallBaseCoin(ctx, vmCaller, sender, args.Refund, args.To, baseCoins, args.Data, args.Memo, args.QuoteId, args.GasLimit, fxTarget, originTokenAmount) if err != nil { - return err + return sdkerrors.Wrapf(err, "bridge call failed for sender %s, refund %s, amount %v", + sender.String(), args.Refund.String(), baseCoins) }
🧹 Nitpick comments (8)
x/erc20/types/expected_keepers.go (1)
48-50: LGTM! Well-structured interface hierarchy for EVM interactions.The new methods provide a clean separation of concerns:
QueryContract: High-level read-only contract queriesApplyContract: High-level contract interactions with value transferExecuteEVM: Low-level EVM executionConsider documenting the recommended usage patterns for each method, particularly when to use
ApplyContractvsExecuteEVM, to guide future developers.x/crosschain/keeper/keeper.go (1)
23-30: LGTM! Clean removal of direct keeper dependencies.The removal of
bridgeFeeQuoteKeeperanderc20TokenKeeperfields aligns with the architectural goal of using theEVMKeeperinterface for contract interactions.The refactoring improves modularity by reducing direct dependencies between modules.
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_fee.go (1)
Line range hint
31-43: Optimize token transfer path.The function could be optimized by checking if the token is native before making the ERC20 token lookup.
Consider reordering the checks:
func (k Keeper) TransferBridgeFee(ctx sdk.Context, caller contract.Caller, from, to common.Address, bridgeFee *big.Int, bridgeTokenName string) error { - if strings.ToUpper(bridgeTokenName) == fxtypes.DefaultDenom { + upperTokenName := strings.ToUpper(bridgeTokenName) + if upperTokenName == fxtypes.DefaultDenom { fees := sdk.NewCoins(sdk.NewCoin(fxtypes.DefaultDenom, sdkmath.NewIntFromBigInt(bridgeFee))) return k.bankKeeper.SendCoins(ctx, from.Bytes(), to.Bytes(), fees) } erc20Token, err := k.erc20Keeper.GetERC20Token(ctx, bridgeTokenName) if err != nil { return err } erc20TokenKeeper := contract.NewERC20TokenKeeper(caller) _, err = erc20TokenKeeper.Transfer(ctx, erc20Token.GetERC20Contract(), from, to, bridgeFee) return err }precompiles/crosschain/crosschain.go (1)
68-68: Well-structured architectural improvement!The addition of
vmCallerand its consistent usage improves the code's testability and reduces direct dependencies on the EVM implementation. This change aligns well with interface-based design principles.Also applies to: 95-96
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_in.go (1)
18-18: Good architectural changes, but error handling could be improvedThe consistent use of the
contract.Callerinterface across all EVM interactions improves the code's modularity. However, the error handling forExecuteEVMcould be more specific.Consider enhancing the error handling:
- txResp, err := caller.ExecuteEVM(ctx, callEvmSender, &to, nil, gasLimit, args) - if err != nil { - return err - } - if txResp.Failed() { - return types.ErrInvalid.Wrap(txResp.VmError) - } + txResp, err := caller.ExecuteEVM(ctx, callEvmSender, &to, nil, gasLimit, args) + if err != nil { + return fmt.Errorf("failed to execute EVM call: %w", err) + } + if txResp.Failed() { + return types.ErrInvalid.Wrapf("EVM execution failed: %s", txResp.VmError) + }Also applies to: 44-44, 49-49, 79-79, 97-97, 101-101, 130-136
x/crosschain/types/expected_keepers.go (1)
49-49: Well-defined interface changesThe addition of
QueryContractandApplyContractmethods provides a clean interface for contract interactions. This improves the separation of concerns and makes the contract interactions more explicit.Consider adding godoc comments to describe the new methods:
// QueryContract executes a read-only contract call and unmarshals the result into res QueryContract(ctx context.Context, from, contract common.Address, abi abi.ABI, method string, res interface{}, args ...interface{}) error // ApplyContract executes a state-modifying contract call with the given parameters ApplyContract(ctx context.Context, from, contract common.Address, value *big.Int, abi abi.ABI, method string, constructorData ...interface{}) (*types.MsgEthereumTxResponse, error)Also applies to: 72-73
precompiles/types/expected_keepers.go (1)
31-34: LGTM! Interface changes align with the refactoring objectives.The addition of the
caller contract.Callerparameter toExecuteClaim,CrosschainBaseCoin, andBridgeCallBaseCoinmethods is a good architectural improvement that:
- Enhances flexibility in EVM interactions
- Provides consistent caller context
- Reduces direct dependencies on contract components
Consider documenting the contract.Caller interface requirements in the interface comments to help implementers understand the expected behavior.
x/erc20/keeper/contract.go (1)
15-16: Consider caching the ERC20TokenKeeper instance.Creating a new
evmErc20Keeperinstance on every call toERC20BaseInfocould impact performance if this method is called frequently. Consider creating the instance once and storing it as a field in the Keeper struct.type Keeper struct { evmKeeper contract.EVMKeeper + evmErc20Keeper *contract.ERC20TokenKeeper // other fields... } func NewKeeper(...) Keeper { k := Keeper{ evmKeeper: evmKeeper, + evmErc20Keeper: contract.NewERC20TokenKeeper(evmKeeper), // other fields... } return k } func (k Keeper) ERC20BaseInfo(ctx context.Context, contractAddr common.Address) (name, symbol string, decimals uint8, err error) { - evmErc20Keeper := contract.NewERC20TokenKeeper(k.evmKeeper) - name, err = evmErc20Keeper.Name(ctx, contractAddr) + name, err = k.evmErc20Keeper.Name(ctx, contractAddr) if err != nil { return name, symbol, decimals, err } - symbol, err = evmErc20Keeper.Symbol(ctx, contractAddr) + symbol, err = k.evmErc20Keeper.Symbol(ctx, contractAddr) if err != nil { return name, symbol, decimals, err } - decimals, err = evmErc20Keeper.Decimals(ctx, contractAddr) + decimals, err = k.evmErc20Keeper.Decimals(ctx, contractAddr) if err != nil { return name, symbol, decimals, err } return name, symbol, decimals, err }Also applies to: 20-20, 24-24
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (29)
app/keepers/keepers.go(0 hunks)contract/contract.go(2 hunks)contract/interface.go(1 hunks)precompiles/crosschain/bridge_call.go(1 hunks)precompiles/crosschain/crosschain.go(2 hunks)precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim.go(2 hunks)precompiles/types/expected_keepers.go(2 hunks)precompiles/vm_caller.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/abci.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/attestation_handler.go(3 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_in.go(5 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_in_test.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out.go(8 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out_test.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_fee.go(4 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/keeper.go(3 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_test.go(0 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/many_to_one.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/msg_server.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/outgoing_tx.go(1 hunks)x/crosschain/keeper/send_to_fx.go(2 hunks)x/crosschain/mock/expected_keepers_mocks.go(4 hunks)x/crosschain/types/expected_keepers.go(3 hunks)x/erc20/keeper/contract.go(1 hunks)x/erc20/keeper/convert.go(4 hunks)x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go(2 hunks)x/erc20/keeper/msg_server.go(1 hunks)x/erc20/types/expected_keepers.go(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_test.go
- app/keepers/keepers.go
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Mergify Merge Protections
- GitHub Check: Summary
🔇 Additional comments (22)
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out.go (3)
Line range hint
133-142: Proper use ofcaller.ExecuteEVMinBridgeCallOnRevertUtilizing
caller.ExecuteEVMenhances flexibility and aligns with the architectural changes, allowing for more dynamic EVM executions.
Line range hint
152-187: Ensurecalleris correctly used inRefundOutgoingBridgeCallPassing
callertok.erc20Keeper.BaseCoinToEvmensures that EVM operations are executed in the correct context.
Line range hint
195-223: Confirm thatHandlerBridgeCallOutFeeaccepts thecallerparameterIn
BridgeCallBaseCoin,calleris now passed toHandlerBridgeCallOutFee. Please verify that:
- The method signature of
HandlerBridgeCallOutFeehas been updated to includecaller.- All calls to
HandlerBridgeCallOutFeein the codebase have been updated accordingly.To verify, use the following script:
✅ Verification successful
✓ Verified:
HandlerBridgeCallOutFeecorrectly accepts and receives thecallerparameterThe method signature has been properly updated to include the
callerparameter, and all calls to this method in the codebase pass thecallerargument correctly.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that `HandlerBridgeCallOutFee` includes `caller` in definitions and calls. # Check function definition ast-grep --pattern $'func ($_).HandlerBridgeCallOutFee(ctx $_, caller contract.Caller, $$$) ($_|$_, error) { $$$ }' --lang go # Check for calls without 'caller' rg --no-heading --line-number 'HandlerBridgeCallOutFee\(ctx,' --glob '*.go' | rg -v 'HandlerBridgeCallOutFee\(ctx, caller'Length of output: 251
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any mention of HandlerBridgeCallOutFee rg --no-heading --line-number "HandlerBridgeCallOutFee" --glob '*.go' -A 2 # Try more flexible pattern for function definition ast-grep --pattern 'func $_HandlerBridgeCallOutFee($_) { $$$ }' --lang go # Look for interface definitions containing this method ast-grep --pattern 'type $_ interface { $$$ HandlerBridgeCallOutFee($_) $_ $$$ }' --lang goLength of output: 882
contract/interface.go (1)
18-18: AddExecuteEVMmethod to allEvmKeeperimplementationsThe addition of
ExecuteEVMto theEvmKeeperinterface extends its functionality. Please ensure:
- All structs implementing
EvmKeeperalso implement the newExecuteEVMmethod to satisfy the interface.- Any mock implementations used in tests are updated accordingly.
To confirm, run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
All
EvmKeeperimplementations includeExecuteEVMmethodThe main implementation in
x/evm/keeper/keeper.goand mock implementation inx/crosschain/mock/both include theExecuteEVMmethod with the correct signature. No other implementations were found that need updating.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all `EvmKeeper` implementations include `ExecuteEVM`. # Find files containing structs that implement `EvmKeeper` rg --files-with-matches 'type .* struct' --glob '*.go' | while read -r file; do echo "Checking $file:" if rg -q 'func.*ExecuteEVM\(' "$file"; then echo "ExecuteEVM method found in $file" else echo "ExecuteEVM method NOT found in $file" fi doneLength of output: 67734
Script:
#!/bin/bash # First find the EvmKeeper interface definition and implementations echo "Finding EvmKeeper interface definition:" ast-grep --pattern 'type EvmKeeper interface { $$$ }' echo -e "\nFinding structs that implement EvmKeeper:" ast-grep --pattern 'type $_ struct { $$$ }' | rg -B2 -A2 'EvmKeeper'Length of output: 2743
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the implementation of ExecuteEVM in fxevmkeeper echo "Checking fxevmkeeper implementation:" rg -p "func \(k .*Keeper\) ExecuteEVM" x/evm/keeper/ echo -e "\nChecking mock implementations:" rg -p "func \(k .*\) ExecuteEVM" x/crosschain/mock/Length of output: 324
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the full implementation details echo "Checking ExecuteEVM implementation in keeper:" rg -A 5 "func \(k \*Keeper\) ExecuteEVM" x/evm/keeper/keeper.go echo -e "\nChecking for other potential implementations:" rg -p "type.*Keeper struct" x/evm/Length of output: 488
x/crosschain/keeper/attestation_handler.go (2)
31-31: LGTM: Method signature update aligns with interface-based approachThe addition of the
caller contract.Callerparameter aligns with the refactoring goal of using interface calls for EVM interactions.
41-45: Verify consistent caller parameter usageThe caller parameter is consistently passed to all executed methods. However, let's verify that all these methods have been updated to handle the caller parameter correctly.
✅ Verification successful
✓ Caller parameter implementation verified
All three methods (
SendToFxExecuted,BridgeCallExecuted, andBridgeCallResultExecuted) have been correctly updated with consistent signatures that include thecaller contract.Callerparameter.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all called methods have been updated to accept the caller parameter # Search for method declarations to ensure they match the new signature ast-grep --pattern 'func $$$SendToFxExecuted$$$($_, $caller contract.Caller, $_) $_' ast-grep --pattern 'func $$$BridgeCallExecuted$$$($_, $caller contract.Caller, $_) $_' ast-grep --pattern 'func $$$BridgeCallResultExecuted$$$($_, $caller contract.Caller, $_) $_'Length of output: 270
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for method definitions with context rg -U "func.*SendToFxExecuted|func.*BridgeCallExecuted|func.*BridgeCallResultExecuted" -A 5Length of output: 1724
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_out_test.go (1)
52-52: LGTM: Test updated correctly for new method signatureThe test has been properly updated to pass the evmKeeper parameter to BridgeCallResultExecuted.
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_in_test.go (1)
64-64: LGTM: Test properly adapted for interface-based EVM callsThe test has been correctly updated to use the EvmKeeper as the contract caller, maintaining comprehensive validation of the bridge call execution.
precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim.go (1)
59-59: LGTM! Proper EVM context propagation.The addition of
precompiles.NewVMCall(evm)ensures that the EVM context is correctly propagated through the call chain.Let's verify that all
ExecuteClaimcallers have been updated:✅ Verification successful
All
ExecuteClaimcallers are correctly updatedThe verification confirms that the only direct caller in
precompiles/crosschain/execute_claim.gocorrectly usesprecompiles.NewVMCall(evm). Other occurrences are in tests, interfaces, and generated code.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for ExecuteClaim calls to ensure they include the new VMCall parameter rg -A 2 "ExecuteClaim\(" --type goLength of output: 13757
x/erc20/keeper/msg_server.go (1)
30-30: LGTM! Consistent use of EVMKeeper interface.The addition of
s.k.evmKeeperparameter aligns with the architectural changes to standardize EVM interactions through the new interface.Let's verify that all similar conversion methods have been updated:
✅ Verification successful
All ConvertCoin calls are properly using the EVMKeeper interface
The verification confirms that:
- The EvmKeeper interface correctly implements the required contract.Caller interface
- All ConvertCoin implementations consistently use the interface
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for ConvertCoin calls to ensure consistent parameter usage rg -A 2 "ConvertCoin\(" --type goLength of output: 5398
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the contract.Caller interface definition and its implementation ast-grep --pattern 'type Caller interface { $$$ }' # Also search for the evmKeeper type to verify it implements the interface rg "type.*evmKeeper" --type go -A 5Length of output: 724
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for evmKeeper with different patterns and its method implementations rg "type.*[Ee]vm[Kk]eeper" --type go -A 5 # Search for the interface methods implementation rg "func \(.*[Ee]vm[Kk]eeper\) (QueryContract|ApplyContract|ExecuteEVM)" --type go -A 2Length of output: 2897
x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go (1)
22-24: LGTM! Clean removal of direct keeper dependency.The removal of evmErc20Keeper and retention of only the necessary keeper interfaces improves the architecture by reducing coupling.
precompiles/crosschain/bridge_call.go (1)
Line range hint
73-83: Consider adding validation for token amounts.The code processes token amounts without explicit validation of the array lengths.
Add validation for token arrays:
+if len(args.Tokens) != len(args.Amounts) { + return errors.New("token and amount arrays must have equal length") +} for i, token := range args.Tokens { baseCoin, err := m.EvmTokenToBaseCoin(ctx, vmCaller, crosschainKeeper, sender, token, args.Amounts[i]) if err != nil { return err } baseCoins = append(baseCoins, baseCoin) }x/crosschain/keeper/keeper_v1_test.go (1)
112-114: Test updated correctly for new interfaceThe test has been properly updated to accommodate the new interface requirements by passing the EvmKeeper instance.
x/crosschain/keeper/many_to_one.go (1)
142-142: LGTM! Method calls updated consistently.The addition of
k.evmKeepertoBaseCoinToEvmcalls aligns with the interface refactoring changes.Also applies to: 162-162
x/crosschain/keeper/outgoing_tx.go (1)
18-20: LGTM! Proper integration of the caller interface.The changes correctly:
- Add the caller parameter to the method signature
- Initialize the bridge fee quote keeper with the caller
- Maintain existing error handling
Let's verify that all callers of this method have been updated:
✅ Verification successful
All callers updated correctly, but method is marked as deprecated
The verification confirms that all callers have been updated to include the caller parameter. However, note that this method is marked as deprecated with a comment suggesting to use
BuildOutgoingBridgeCallinstead.
msg_server.go: Usess.evmKeeperas callerbridge_call_out.go: Uses the providedcallerparameter🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for calls to BuildOutgoingTxBatch to ensure they include the caller parameter ast-grep --pattern 'BuildOutgoingTxBatch($$$)'Length of output: 48
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for BuildOutgoingTxBatch calls using ripgrep rg -l "BuildOutgoingTxBatch" --type go # Show the actual calls with context rg "BuildOutgoingTxBatch" --type go -B 2 -A 1Length of output: 1209
x/crosschain/keeper/abci.go (1)
174-174: LGTM! Consistent with interface refactoring.The addition of
k.evmKeeperto theRefundOutgoingBridgeCallcall aligns with the broader refactoring changes.x/crosschain/keeper/msg_server.go (1)
357-357: LGTM: Consistent with the interface-based EVM interaction pattern.The change correctly passes the
evmKeepertoBuildOutgoingTxBatch, aligning with the PR's objective of using interface-based EVM calls.x/crosschain/mock/expected_keepers_mocks.go (3)
364-375: LGTM: Mock correctly updated for BaseCoinToEvm.The mock implementation correctly reflects the updated signature with the new
callerparameter.
548-566: LGTM: ApplyContract mock implementation.The mock correctly implements the variadic function pattern for contract application, properly handling the constructor data arguments.
597-613: LGTM: QueryContract mock implementation.The mock correctly implements the variadic function pattern for contract queries, properly handling the args parameter.
contract/contract.go (2)
8-8: LGTM: Required import for SDK context.The import is necessary for the new ExecuteEVM method signature.
91-91: LGTM: New ExecuteEVM method in Caller interface.The method signature provides all necessary parameters for direct EVM execution while maintaining consistency with the existing interface methods.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Changes
Technical Improvements
Compatibility
These changes represent a significant refactoring of contract and crosschain interaction mechanisms, providing more robust and flexible contract management capabilities.