doc: add example and documentation for pool creation with tick data #110
Conversation
This commit introduces an example demonstrating how to create a pool with a tick map data provider and simulates a swap in the README. Additionally, it includes documentation for the `from_pool_key_with_tick_data_provider` method in the codebase, enhancing clarity for developers utilizing the pool extension. These additions aim to improve understanding and usability of the library's pool-related features.
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@shuhuiluo has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 12 minutes and 36 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. 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces enhancements to the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
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: 5
🧹 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/extensions/pool.rs (1)
Line range hint
149-180: Bazinga! We should add input validation.The implementation is logically sound, but as someone who appreciates proper validation, I must point out that we're accepting inputs with blind trust.
Add validation for critical parameters:
pub async fn from_pool_key_with_tick_data_provider<T, P>( chain_id: ChainId, factory: Address, token_a: Address, token_b: Address, fee: FeeAmount, provider: P, block_id: Option<BlockId>, ) -> Result<Self, Error> where T: Transport + Clone, P: Provider<T> + Clone, { + // Validate chain_id is supported + if !is_supported_chain(chain_id) { + return Err(Error::UnsupportedChain(chain_id)); + } + + // Validate factory address is correct for chain + if !is_valid_factory(chain_id, factory) { + return Err(Error::InvalidFactory(factory)); + } + let pool = Pool::from_pool_key( chain_id, factory,
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
Cargo.toml(1 hunks)README.md(1 hunks)examples/from_pool_key_with_tick_data_provider.rs(1 hunks)src/extensions/pool.rs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
Cargo.toml (1)
64-67: Bazinga! The example configuration is correctly structured.
The manifest entry properly specifies both the example name and its required feature dependency. As someone with two doctorates, I can confirm this is the correct way to configure Cargo examples.
src/extensions/pool.rs (1)
Line range hint 149-180: Fascinating! Let's verify the security implications.
As someone who takes security as seriously as I take my spot on the couch, we should verify the robustness of our financial calculations.
✅ Verification successful
Bazinga! After meticulous analysis of the mathematical operations, I must point out something fascinating.
The code demonstrates robust protection against integer overflow/underflow through:
- Consistent usage of checked arithmetic operations via
Resulttypes - Proper bounds checking in tick math (
MIN_TICK,MAX_TICK) - Safe type conversions with explicit error handling
- Mathematical operations protected by
mul_divand other safe arithmetic functions
The token address validation is handled at the Pool creation level with proper error propagation through the Result type system. The code follows a theoretically sound approach that would make even a theoretical physicist proud.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential security issues in token handling and calculations
# Check for integer overflow/underflow protection in calculations
rg -A 2 "(\+|-|\*|/)" src/
# Check for proper error handling in token operations
ast-grep --pattern 'Result<$_, Error>'
# Look for token address validation
rg -A 2 'address!'
Length of output: 73910
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
examples/from_pool_key_with_tick_data_provider.rs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
examples/from_pool_key_with_tick_data_provider.rs (4)
22-25:
Error handling gives me the same anxiety as when someone sits in my spot!
The use of unwrap() remains problematic. This requires proper error handling.
25-27: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Magic numbers are like chaos in my perfectly ordered universe!
Block number and token addresses should be constants with proper documentation.
10-19: As my mother always says, "Version your dependencies!"
While your imports are logically organized, we should ensure version constraints are properly specified in Cargo.toml.
1-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Bazinga! The documentation needs version information.
While your documentation demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of technical writing, it lacks crucial version information. Add SDK version compatibility details.
//! Example demonstrating pool creation with tick data provider and swap simulation
//!
//! # Prerequisites
//! - Environment variable MAINNET_RPC_URL must be set
//! - Requires the "extensions" feature
+//! - Compatible with uniswap-v3-sdk v0.1.0 and above
//!
//! # Note
//! This example uses mainnet block 17000000 for consistent resultsLikely invalid or redundant comment.
Eliminate the unnecessary generic type parameter `<i32>` for `EphemeralTickMapDataProvider` in several places, streamlining the code and documentation. This change helps to reduce complexity and potential errors without affecting functionality. Additionally, improve code comments to enhance clarity and maintain accuracy.
This commit introduces an example demonstrating how to create a pool with a tick map data provider and simulates a swap in the README. Additionally, it includes documentation for the
from_pool_key_with_tick_data_providermethod in the codebase, enhancing clarity for developers utilizing the pool extension. These additions aim to improve understanding and usability of the library's pool-related features.Closes #108.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation