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

perf: refactor Trade methods #102

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 4, 2024
Merged

perf: refactor Trade methods #102

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 4, 2024

Conversation

shuhuiluo
Copy link
Owner

@shuhuiluo shuhuiluo commented Nov 4, 2024

Refactored input_amount and output_amount methods to use Fraction for cleaner and more efficient code. Improved heuristic algorithm in functions handling pool exclusions during trade computations. Added #[repr(u32)] and #[allow(non_camel_case_types)] attributes to FeeAmount enum and updated crate version to 2.4.1.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • Updated package version to 2.4.1, enhancing dependency management.
    • Improved precision in trade calculations for input and output amounts.
  • Bug Fixes
    • Enhanced clarity in trading logic by refining the iteration method for pool selection.
  • Refactor
    • Structural changes to the FeeAmount enum for better representation.
    • Refactored methods in the Trade struct to improve calculation accuracy and control flow.

Refactored `input_amount` and `output_amount` methods to use `Fraction` for cleaner and more efficient code. Improved heuristic algorithm in functions handling pool exclusions during trade computations. Added `#[repr(u32)]` and `#[allow(non_camel_case_types)]` attributes to `FeeAmount` enum and updated crate version to `2.4.1`.
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 4, 2024

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@shuhuiluo has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 13 minutes and 41 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 926f06b and 02bbb00.

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces several updates across multiple files in the uniswap-v3-sdk package. The Cargo.toml file is updated to version 2.4.1, with modifications to the feature lists for extensions and std. The src/constants.rs file sees structural changes to the FeeAmount enum, enhancing its representation. Meanwhile, the src/entities/trade.rs file undergoes significant refactoring of the Trade struct's methods, improving the calculation of input and output amounts and refining the control flow for trading logic.

Changes

File Change Summary
Cargo.toml Updated version from 2.4.0 to 2.4.1. Modified extensions feature list to move "uniswap-lens" and updated std feature to include optional dependencies.
src/constants.rs Added #[repr(u32)] and #[allow(non_camel_case_types)] attributes to the FeeAmount enum. No changes to existing constants.
src/entities/trade.rs Refactored input_amount and output_amount methods to use Fraction for calculations. Updated best_trade_exact_in and best_trade_exact_out methods for clarity and control flow.

Possibly related PRs

In the world of code, where logic does reign,
Updates and changes, like a well-timed train.
From Cargo.toml to trades that we make,
Each line a step, for innovation's sake.
With enums aligned and methods refined,
The future of trading, brilliantly designed! 🚂✨


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.

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
Contributor

@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: 5

🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
src/constants.rs (2)

Line range hint 17-25: Bazinga! The enum variants follow a perfectly logical progression.

The fee amounts are arranged in ascending order, which satisfies my need for organizational perfection. However, I must point out that the naming scheme, while consistent, creates a peculiar situation where we have both LOW and LOW_200, LOW_300, etc. This reminds me of the time I had to reorganize my sock drawer to accommodate both regular and special edition Flash socks.

Consider adding documentation to clarify the relationship between these variants, perhaps something like:

 pub enum FeeAmount {
+    /// Lowest fee tier: 0.01%
     LOWEST = 100,
+    /// Low fee tier variant: 0.02%
     LOW_200 = 200,
     // ... (similar for other variants)
 }

Line range hint 45-83: The conversion implementations are as robust as my weekly routine!

The panic messages for invalid inputs are appropriately defensive, though they could benefit from more specific error messages. Just as I always say, "In a world of entropy, clarity in error messages is our only defense against chaos."

Consider enhancing the panic messages:

-            _ => panic!("Invalid fee amount"),
+            _ => panic!("Invalid fee amount. Expected one of: 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 3000, 10000"),
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 29d2da6 and 926f06b.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • Cargo.toml (2 hunks)
  • src/constants.rs (1 hunks)
  • src/entities/trade.rs (8 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
Cargo.toml (3)

3-3: Bazinga! The version increment follows proper semantic versioning.

As someone who appreciates order in the universe, I must say I'm pleased to see the version number incremented from 2.4.0 to 2.4.1, following the established principles of semantic versioning. This indicates non-breaking changes, which is consistent with the nature of the modifications.


37-37: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Fascinating reorganization of the extensions feature list!

The reordering of dependencies in alphabetical order is quite satisfying to my need for systematic organization. However, I can't help but notice that "uniswap-lens" at the end disrupts this perfect alphabetical sequence.

Consider this more logical arrangement:

-extensions = ["alloy", "anyhow", "base64", "regex", "serde_json", "uniswap-lens"]
+extensions = ["alloy", "anyhow", "base64", "regex", "serde_json", "uniswap-lens"]  # Note: Consider maintaining alphabetical order

Likely invalid or redundant comment.


37-38: Theoretical verification of feature dependencies required!

As someone who believes in thorough verification (much like my habit of knocking three times), we should ensure these feature modifications don't introduce any circular dependencies.

✅ Verification successful

Bazinga! No circular dependencies detected!

After applying my superior intellect to analyze the feature dependency structure (much like I analyze my weekly routine), I can conclusively state that the feature modifications are theoretically sound. Here's why:

  • The extensions feature properly gates all uniswap-lens imports and usages
  • The std feature follows the canonical Rust pattern of enabling std features for dependencies with optional ? notation
  • The error handling gracefully degrades when std is disabled, maintaining a proper no_std compatibility

The dependency graph is as organized as my sock drawer - each feature knows its place and purpose. The optional features are properly contained within cfg guards, and there's no circular reference that could cause a temporal paradox in our dependency tree.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential circular dependencies in features

# Search for any feature references in the codebase
echo "Checking feature usage patterns..."
rg --type rust '#\[cfg\(feature = "(extensions|std)"\)\]' -A 3

# Look for potential feature conflicts
echo "Analyzing potential feature conflicts..."
rg 'uniswap-lens' --type rust

Length of output: 2045


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# As a meticulous scientist, I must examine the feature dependencies more thoroughly

# Let's examine the Cargo.toml for all feature definitions
echo "Analyzing feature definitions in Cargo.toml..."
rg '\[features\]' -A 10 Cargo.toml

# Check for any conditional compilation blocks related to uniswap-lens
echo "Examining uniswap-lens usage patterns..."
ast-grep --pattern 'cfg(feature = "std")' 

# Investigate potential feature interactions
echo "Investigating feature interactions..."
rg --type rust 'cfg_attr.*feature.*std' -A 2

# Check for any direct uniswap-lens imports
echo "Checking uniswap-lens imports..."
rg --type rust '^use.*uniswap_lens'

Length of output: 4222

src/constants.rs (1)

Line range hint 27-43: The tick spacing implementation demonstrates remarkable elegance!

The use of I24::from_limbs is as precise as my mother's method for measuring Vicks VapoRub – exactly what we need for financial calculations. The match expression is exhaustive and well-organized, much like my weekly schedule.

src/entities/trade.rs (2)

242-251: Enhanced Precision in Input Amount Calculation

Well, it's delightful to see that you've finally recognized the superiority of using fractions for summing input amounts. This change improves numerical accuracy and elevates the integrity of the code.


274-283: Consistent Use of Fractions for Output Amount Calculation

Ah, consistency! Utilizing fractions for output amounts ensures that our calculations maintain their precision. An intellectually sound decision that reinforces the correctness of the code.

Cargo.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/constants.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/entities/trade.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/entities/trade.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/entities/trade.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
shuhuiluo and others added 2 commits November 4, 2024 00:10
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Updated loops in trade.rs to use `enumerate()` for better clarity. Changed pool exclusion to utilize `take` and `skip` for more concise and readable code. These adjustments improve code readability and maintainability.
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.

1 participant