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

refactor(x/crosschain): fix type registration for claim and confirm any #891

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

zakir-code
Copy link
Contributor

@zakir-code zakir-code commented Jan 10, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor

    • Removed several message types related to cross-chain functionality
    • Updated interface handling for message types in crosschain module
    • Simplified interface unpacking mechanism
  • Code Cleanup

    • Removed deprecated message implementations
    • Streamlined interface registration process

Note: These changes appear to be internal architectural modifications that do not directly impact end-user functionality.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 10, 2025

Walkthrough

This pull request involves significant modifications to the crosschain module's message handling infrastructure. The changes primarily focus on removing several message types from the interface registry and codec registration, specifically targeting gravity cross-chain related messages. The modifications simplify the message type handling by reducing the number of registered message implementations and updating the interface unpacking mechanism to use a more direct approach with codectypes.AnyUnpacker.

Changes

File Change Summary
app/interface_registry.json Removed 6 message types related to gravity cross-chain module
x/crosschain/types/codec.go Deleted registrations for multiple message implementations in RegisterInterfaces and RegisterInterface
x/crosschain/types/msgs.go Updated interface unpacking logic, removed sdktx package, expanded Confirm interface

Possibly related PRs

Poem

🐰 In the realm of crosschain's dance,
Messages trimmed with rabbit's glance
Interfaces clean, types refined
Gravity's path now redesigned
Code hopping lighter, swift, and free! 🌉

Finishing Touches

  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @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.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

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

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
x/crosschain/types/msgs.go (1)

323-324: Consider enhancing error handling verbosity.

While the unpacking logic is correct, consider wrapping the errors with additional context to aid in debugging:

 func (m MsgClaim) UnpackInterfaces(unpacker codectypes.AnyUnpacker) error {
 	var externalClaim ExternalClaim
-	return unpacker.UnpackAny(m.Claim, &externalClaim)
+	if err := unpacker.UnpackAny(m.Claim, &externalClaim); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("failed to unpack ExternalClaim: %w", err)
+	}
+	return nil
 }

 func (m MsgConfirm) UnpackInterfaces(unpacker codectypes.AnyUnpacker) error {
 	var confirm Confirm
-	return unpacker.UnpackAny(m.Confirm, &confirm)
+	if err := unpacker.UnpackAny(m.Confirm, &confirm); err != nil {
+		return fmt.Errorf("failed to unpack Confirm: %w", err)
+	}
+	return nil
 }

Also applies to: 701-702

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 08fc8ba and da0ff2b.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • app/interface_registry.json (0 hunks)
  • x/crosschain/types/codec.go (0 hunks)
  • x/crosschain/types/msgs.go (3 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
  • x/crosschain/types/codec.go
  • app/interface_registry.json
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
  • GitHub Check: Mergify Merge Protections
  • GitHub Check: Summary
🔇 Additional comments (2)
x/crosschain/types/msgs.go (2)

75-78: LGTM! Proper interface compliance registration.

The compile-time interface compliance checks for UnpackInterfacesMessage are correctly registered for both MsgClaim and MsgConfirm.


75-78: Verify interface implementations across the codebase.

Let's ensure all message types implementing these interfaces are consistently registered and handled:

Also applies to: 323-324, 701-702

✅ Verification successful

Interface implementations are properly registered and consistent

The codebase shows complete and correct registration of all message types implementing the UnpackInterfacesMessage interface, with proper interface hierarchy maintained in the codec registration system.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for any unregistered UnpackInterfacesMessage implementations
echo "Checking for potential missing UnpackInterfacesMessage implementations..."
ast-grep --pattern 'type $name struct {
  $$$
  Claim *$_ `$$$`
  $$$
}'

echo "Checking for potential missing Confirm implementations..."
ast-grep --pattern 'type $name struct {
  $$$
  Confirm *$_ `$$$`
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 433


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Find all UnpackInterfacesMessage implementations
echo "Checking UnpackInterfacesMessage implementations..."
ast-grep --pattern '_ codectypes.UnpackInterfacesMessage = &$msg{}'

# Find message registrations
echo -e "\nChecking message registrations..."
rg "RegisterImplementations|RegisterInterface" -A 3

# Find message handlers
echo -e "\nChecking message handlers..."
ast-grep --pattern 'func (k Keeper) $name(ctx $_ $msg types.$_) ($_)'

Length of output: 10740

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants