refactor: contract pack and call #775
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant modifications across multiple files, primarily enhancing cross-chain functionalities and ERC20 token management. Key updates include the integration of a new Changes
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: 18
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
x/crosschain/types/memo.go (1)
7-7: Add documentation for the MemoSendCallTo constant.The purpose and significance of this specific hash value should be documented. Consider adding a comment explaining what this magic number represents and how it's used in the cross-chain functionality.
+// MemoSendCallTo is a predefined hash value used to identify cross-chain send-call-to operations. +// The hash value 0x0...10000 represents [ADD SPECIFIC MEANING HERE]. var MemoSendCallTo = common.HexToHash("0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000")scripts/linter.sh (1)
8-12: Document the rationale for pattern limits.Consider adding comments explaining why these specific limits were chosen. This will help future maintainers understand the reasoning behind these numbers.
patternLimits=( "nolint:20" "#nosec:5" - "CrossChain:3" - "cross chain:0" - "GetERC1967Proxy:4" - "GetWFX:9" - "GetFIP20:12" + # Limit CrossChain usage to maintain modularity + "CrossChain:3" + "cross chain:0" + # Proxy and token-related pattern limits + "GetERC1967Proxy:4" + "GetWFX:9" + "GetFIP20:12"tests/precompile_suite.go (1)
Line range hint
37-49: Consider enhancing error messages and documenting the empty memo parameter.The implementation looks correct, but could benefit from a few improvements:
- The balance check error message could be more descriptive
- The empty memo parameter in the crossChain call should be documented
Consider applying these changes:
func (suite *PrecompileTestSuite) Crosschain(token common.Address, recipient string, amount, fee *big.Int, target string) *ethtypes.Transaction { privateKey := suite.privKey crosschainContract := crosschaintypes.GetAddress() suite.ApproveERC20(privateKey, token, crosschainContract, big.NewInt(0).Add(amount, fee)) beforeBalanceOf := suite.BalanceOf(token, common.BytesToAddress(privateKey.PubKey().Address().Bytes())) - pack, err := crosschaintypes.GetABI().Pack("crossChain", token, recipient, amount, fee, fxtypes.MustStrToByte32(target), "") + // Note: Empty string is passed as memo parameter as it's not required for testing + pack, err := crosschaintypes.GetABI().Pack("crossChain", token, recipient, amount, fee, fxtypes.MustStrToByte32(target), "") suite.Require().NoError(err) ethTx, err := client.BuildEthTransaction(suite.ctx, suite.EthClient(), privateKey, &crosschainContract, nil, pack) suite.Require().NoError(err, target) suite.SendTransaction(ethTx) afterBalanceOf := suite.BalanceOf(token, common.BytesToAddress(privateKey.PubKey().Address().Bytes())) - suite.Require().True(new(big.Int).Sub(beforeBalanceOf, afterBalanceOf).Cmp(new(big.Int).Add(amount, fee)) == 0) + balanceDiff := new(big.Int).Sub(beforeBalanceOf, afterBalanceOf) + expectedDiff := new(big.Int).Add(amount, fee) + suite.Require().True(balanceDiff.Cmp(expectedDiff) == 0, + "Balance difference %s does not match expected %s", balanceDiff, expectedDiff) return ethTx }contract/contract_test.go (1)
55-55: Consider enhancing test coverage with edge cases.While the existing test case is comprehensive, consider adding edge cases such as:
- Empty token arrays
- Mismatched token and amount array lengths
- Zero amounts
- Invalid/malformed data payload
cmd/delegate.go (1)
144-151: LGTM! Clean implementation using ERC20TokenKeeper.The refactoring improves code clarity by using the dedicated
ERC20TokenKeeperfor balance queries.Consider improving error handling to avoid panics. Here's a suggested implementation:
-func queryContractBalance(myApp *app.App, ctx sdk.Context, contractAddr, address common.Address, holders map[string]sdkmath.Int) { +func queryContractBalance(myApp *app.App, ctx sdk.Context, contractAddr, address common.Address, holders map[string]sdkmath.Int) error { if contract.IsZeroEthAddress(contractAddr) { - return + return nil } balance, err := contract.NewERC20TokenKeeper(myApp.EvmKeeper).BalanceOf(ctx, contractAddr, address) if err != nil { - panic(err) + return fmt.Errorf("failed to query balance: %w", err) } if balance.Cmp(big.NewInt(0)) == 0 { - return + return nil } holders[address.Hex()] = sdkmath.NewIntFromBigInt(balance) + return nil }This would require updating the caller in
allHolderto handle the error appropriately.x/evm/testutil/erc20.go (2)
Line range hint
208-231: Consider improving gas estimation and error handling in Deposit method.The current implementation:
- Uses a hardcoded gas limit of 80000
- Uses a hardcoded gas price of 500 * 1e9
- Doesn't handle potential out-of-gas scenarios explicitly
Consider these improvements:
- Use dynamic gas estimation
- Add explicit error handling for out-of-gas scenarios
- Extract gas-related constants to configuration
func (s *ERC20Suite) Deposit(value *big.Int, result bool) { data, err := s.abi.Pack("deposit") s.NoError(err) + + // Estimate gas for the transaction + gasLimit, err := s.evmKeeper.EstimateGas(s.ctx, nil, &s.contractAddr, value, data) + s.NoError(err) msg := &core.Message{ To: &s.contractAddr, From: s.signer.Address(), Nonce: s.evmKeeper.GetNonce(s.ctx, s.signer.Address()), Value: value, - GasLimit: 80000, + GasLimit: gasLimit, GasPrice: big.NewInt(500 * 1e9), GasFeeCap: nil, GasTipCap: nil,
135-143: LGTM! Consider adding response validation.The addition of
*evmtypes.MsgEthereumTxResponsereturn type improves error handling capabilities. The implementation correctly maintains balance checks while adding the return value.Consider adding validation for the response logs to ensure the correct events were emitted:
func (s *ERC20Suite) Transfer(recipient common.Address, amount *big.Int, result bool) *evmtypes.MsgEthereumTxResponse { before := s.BalanceOf(s.signer.Address()) response := s.Send("transfer", recipient, amount) after := s.BalanceOf(s.signer.Address()) s.Equal(response.Failed(), !result) if result { s.Equal(after, new(big.Int).Sub(before, amount)) + s.Equal(1, len(response.Logs), "Expected Transfer event") } return response }Also applies to: 156-164
testutil/helpers/suite.go (1)
186-189: Consider adding documentation and improving error handling.While the implementation is correct, consider these improvements:
- Add a method comment explaining its purpose and parameters
- Consider asserting specific error types instead of using a generic NoError check
Example documentation:
// CheckBalanceOf verifies the ERC20 token balance of an address against an expected value. // Parameters: // - contractAddr: The ERC20 contract address // - address: The account address to check // - expBal: The expected balancetests/evm_test.go (1)
Line range hint
1-314: Consider enhancing test suite architecture.The refactoring improves code organization through consistent patterns and helper methods. To further enhance the test suite:
- Consider creating a dedicated contract testing package with reusable verification helpers
- Add test cases for error scenarios in contract deployments
- Document the expected behavior and verification steps in test method comments
contract/contract.go (1)
108-117: Add error handling forPackBridgeCallback.In the
PackBridgeCallbackfunction, consider handling potential errors returned bybridgeCallbackABI.Packto enhance robustness.Apply this diff to check and return packing errors:
-func PackBridgeCallback(sender, receiver common.Address, tokens []common.Address, amounts []*big.Int, data, memo []byte) ([]byte, error) { - return bridgeCallbackABI.Pack("bridgeCallback", - sender, - receiver, - tokens, - amounts, - data, - memo, - ) +func PackBridgeCallback(sender, receiver common.Address, tokens []common.Address, amounts []*big.Int, data, memo []byte) ([]byte, error) { + packedData, err := bridgeCallbackABI.Pack("bridgeCallback", + sender, + receiver, + tokens, + amounts, + data, + memo, + ) + if err != nil { + return nil, err + } + return packedData, nil }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (26)
- app/keepers/keepers.go (2 hunks)
- cmd/delegate.go (1 hunks)
- contract/contract.go (4 hunks)
- contract/contract_test.go (3 hunks)
- contract/erc20_abi.go (7 hunks)
- contract/erc20_token.go (1 hunks)
- contract/precompile.go (2 hunks)
- contract/types.go (0 hunks)
- scripts/linter.sh (1 hunks)
- tests/evm_suite.go (11 hunks)
- tests/evm_test.go (5 hunks)
- tests/precompile_suite.go (1 hunks)
- testutil/helpers/suite.go (4 hunks)
- x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_in.go (2 hunks)
- x/crosschain/precompile/contract.go (1 hunks)
- x/crosschain/types/abi.go (0 hunks)
- x/crosschain/types/memo.go (1 hunks)
- x/crosschain/types/types.go (3 hunks)
- x/erc20/keeper/contract.go (1 hunks)
- x/erc20/keeper/convert.go (2 hunks)
- x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go (2 hunks)
- x/erc20/types/expected_keepers.go (1 hunks)
- x/evm/keeper/erc20.go (0 hunks)
- x/evm/testutil/erc20.go (5 hunks)
- x/evm/types/errors.go (0 hunks)
- x/staking/precompile/contract.go (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (4)
- contract/types.go
- x/crosschain/types/abi.go
- x/evm/keeper/erc20.go
- x/evm/types/errors.go
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (45)
x/crosschain/types/memo.go (1)
1-11: Verify the usage of this new memo validation.The code looks good overall, but let's verify how this new memo validation is being used across the codebase to ensure consistent implementation.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate a final response as we have a clear picture of how the new memo validation is being used across the codebase.
The new memo validation is properly integrated and consistently used
The verification shows that the memo validation is well-integrated and used consistently:
- The
IsMemoSendCallTofunction is used inMsgBridgeCallClaim.IsMemoSendCallTo()method- The validation result is properly handled in
bridge_call_in.gowhere it affects the execution flow- No other similar memo validation patterns were found that would need updating
- The implementation follows a clear pattern where the validation result is used to make routing decisions in the bridge call handling
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the usage of IsMemoSendCallTo function and MemoSendCallTo constant # across the codebase to ensure proper integration. echo "Checking usage of IsMemoSendCallTo function:" rg -p "IsMemoSendCallTo" echo -e "\nChecking references to MemoSendCallTo constant:" rg -p "MemoSendCallTo" echo -e "\nChecking for similar memo validation patterns that might need updating:" ast-grep --pattern 'common.BytesToHash($x) == $y'Length of output: 1559
x/erc20/keeper/contract.go (1)
15-26: LGTM! Method names have been simplified while maintaining functionality.The refactoring of method calls (
Name,Symbol,Decimals) improves code clarity while preserving the original error handling and control flow. This change aligns well with the broader refactoring effort to streamline ERC20 token interactions.Let's verify that these method names are consistently used across the codebase:
scripts/linter.sh (1)
8-12: Verify the new pattern limits against actual usage.Let's verify if the new pattern limits match the current codebase usage.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the results we got:
- CrossChain: 785 occurrences vs limit of 3
- GetERC1967Proxy: 4 occurrences = limit of 4
- GetWFX: 9 occurrences = limit of 9
- GetFIP20: 12 occurrences = limit of 12
The results show that most patterns match their limits exactly except for "CrossChain" which shows significantly more occurrences (785) than the limit (3). This large discrepancy needs investigation as it might be due to case sensitivity or counting comments/strings. Let's verify this with a more precise search:
Now I can provide the final response based on the verification results:
Pattern limits in linter.sh are correctly set and match actual usage
The verification shows that all pattern limits are accurately set according to their actual usage in the codebase:
- GetERC1967Proxy: limit 4 matches actual 4 occurrences
- GetWFX: limit 9 matches actual 9 occurrences
- GetFIP20: limit 12 matches actual 12 occurrences
- CrossChain: Our case-sensitive search shows only 3 actual occurrences (matching the limit of 3), while the earlier high count was due to case-insensitive matching including variations like "crossChain" and other similar terms
The pattern limits are appropriate and reflect the current state of the codebase. The linter configuration will effectively maintain these constraints.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check actual occurrences of patterns against defined limits # Test patterns with case-insensitive search to catch all variations patterns=("CrossChain" "GetERC1967Proxy" "GetWFX" "GetFIP20") for pattern in "${patterns[@]}"; do echo "Checking pattern: $pattern" rg -i --type go --glob '!*.pb.go' --glob '!*.pulsar.go' --glob '!*.sol.go' --glob '!legacy.go' "$pattern" ./ | wc -l doneLength of output: 951
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check CrossChain pattern with more context echo "=== CrossChain exact matches ===" rg -c --type go --glob '!*.pb.go' --glob '!*.pulsar.go' --glob '!*.sol.go' --glob '!legacy.go' 'CrossChain' ./ echo -e "\n=== Sample of matches with context ===" rg --type go --glob '!*.pb.go' --glob '!*.pulsar.go' --glob '!*.sol.go' --glob '!legacy.go' 'CrossChain' ./ -A 1 -B 1 | head -n 9Length of output: 1066
tests/precompile_suite.go (1)
37-37: LGTM! Method rename reflects its actual functionality.The rename from
CrosschainAndResponsetoCrosschainbetter represents the method's purpose, as it focuses on the cross-chain transfer functionality.x/erc20/types/expected_keepers.go (1)
34-41: Clean and well-structured interface design!The renamed interface and simplified method names follow good interface design principles while maintaining the same functionality. The methods are logically grouped and follow the Interface Segregation Principle.
x/crosschain/precompile/contract.go (5)
64-64: LGTM! Parameter rename improves clarity.The parameter rename from
contracttovmContractis a good change as it better describes the parameter's purpose and avoids confusion with the receiver type.
70-77: LGTM! Well-structured protection checks.The code maintains a good sequence of validation checks:
- Method identification
- Write protection for readonly operations
- Governance checks for disabled precompiles
80-84: LGTM! Clear execution flow with consistent error handling.The method execution and error handling follow a clear pattern and maintain proper error propagation.
87-87: LGTM! Consistent error handling for unknown methods.The error handling follows the standardized pattern and provides a clear error message.
65-66: Verify consistent error handling across precompiles.The change to use
contract.PackRetErrV2suggests a standardization of error handling. Let's verify this pattern is consistently applied across other precompile contracts.✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response as we have sufficient information about the error handling patterns across precompile contracts.
Error handling is consistently using contract.PackRetErrV2 across precompiles
The search results confirm that:
- There are no remaining instances of
evmtypes.PackRetErrV2in precompile contractscontract.PackRetErrV2is consistently used across both staking and crosschain precompile contracts for error handling in similar scenarios:
- Invalid input validation
- Write protection checks
- Unknown method errors
- General error wrapping
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent error handling across precompile contracts # Expect: All precompiles should use contract.PackRetErrV2 instead of evmtypes.PackRetErrV2 echo "Checking for any remaining uses of evmtypes.PackRetErrV2 in precompile contracts..." rg "evmtypes\.PackRetErrV2" --type go -g "**/precompile/**" echo "Verifying adoption of contract.PackRetErrV2 in precompile contracts..." rg "contract\.PackRetErrV2" --type go -g "**/precompile/**"Length of output: 1247
contract/precompile.go (3)
19-25: LGTM! Well-structured type definition.The
ERC20Callstruct is well-designed with appropriate fields for EVM interaction and clean embedding ofERC20ABI.
69-98: LGTM! Well-implemented methods with proper error handling.The
TransferFromandTotalSupplymethods are well-structured with appropriate error handling and result verification.
27-39: Verify DefaultGasCap constant definition.The constructor looks good, but let's verify the
DefaultGasCapconstant is properly defined.✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different search strategy to locate the
DefaultGasCapdefinition.This will help us:
- Find any mention of DefaultGasCap regardless of case
- Find any gas cap related constants that might be relevant
- Focus only on Go files where such constants are likely to be defined
DefaultGasCapis properly defined and used consistentlyThe constant
DefaultGasCapis defined incontract/contract.gowith a value of 30000000 (30M gas units). This is a reasonable default gas cap value and is consistently used across the codebase:
- As the default value in the
NewERC20Callconstructor- In the JSON-RPC configuration
- In various precompile contract tests
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for DefaultGasCap definition rg -A 1 "DefaultGasCap\s*=\s*"Length of output: 32
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for DefaultGasCap using different patterns and in different contexts rg -i "DefaultGasCap" --type go # Also search for any gas cap related constants rg "(?i)gas.*cap.*=\s*" --type goLength of output: 1164
x/erc20/keeper/convert.go (2)
72-75: LGTM! The changes maintain transactional safety.The modifications preserve the critical error handling and transaction safety:
- Both operations are part of multi-step transactions with proper error handling
- The bank operations (SendCoinsFromAccountToModule) occur before the EVM operations
- The function signatures and parameters remain unchanged
Also applies to: 92-95
93-93: Verify the interface change for transfer operation.The method name change from
ERC20TransfertoTransferappears correct, but let's verify the interface implementation to ensure consistency.✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information to verify the interface change completely.
Let me do one final check to find the implementation of the Transfer method.
Interface change from
ERC20TransfertoTransferis correctly implementedThe verification confirms:
- The
Transfermethod is properly defined in theERC20TokenKeeperinterface inx/erc20/types/expected_keepers.go- The method is correctly implemented in
contract/erc20_token.gowith the expected signature- No occurrences of the old
ERC20Transfermethod were found in the codebase🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the interface change from ERC20Transfer to Transfer # Expected: The new Transfer method should be defined in the ERC20TokenKeeper interface # and implemented in the concrete keeper # Check the interface definition rg -A 5 "type ERC20TokenKeeper interface" # Check for any remaining uses of the old method name rg "ERC20Transfer"Length of output: 617
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the complete interface definition and look for Transfer method rg -A 15 "type ERC20TokenKeeper interface" # Let's also search for Transfer method implementations ast-grep --pattern 'func $_($_ context.Context, contractAddr common.Address, from, receiver common.Address, amount *big.Int) error'Length of output: 1568
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Transfer implementation in the keeper rg -A 5 "func \(k .*\) Transfer\(" # Also check for any files that might contain the old ERC20Transfer method fd -e go -x grep -l "ERC20Transfer"Length of output: 494
x/staking/precompile/contract.go (3)
89-91: LGTM: Parameter rename and input validation.The parameter rename from
contracttovmContractimproves clarity, and the input validation correctly checks for the minimum method ID length.
105-107: LGTM: Method execution and error handling.The method execution and error handling are correctly updated to use the renamed parameter and consistent error packing.
112-112: LGTM: Default error handling.The default error case correctly uses the new error packing function with a clear error message.
contract/contract_test.go (1)
1-1: LGTM! Package reorganization looks good.The move from
typestocontractpackage improves code organization by better aligning the test with its corresponding implementation.Also applies to: 11-11
x/crosschain/keeper/bridge_call_in.go (2)
14-14: LGTM: Import addition aligns with the refactoring.The new contract package import is correctly placed and necessary for the refactored PackBridgeCallback functionality.
100-100: Verify packing format compatibility.While the refactoring from
types.PackBridgeCallbacktocontract.PackBridgeCallbacklooks correct, we should verify that the packing format remains consistent to maintain cross-chain compatibility.✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the implementation details to verify the packing format compatibility.
Let me gather one final piece of information to verify the ABI definition that ensures packing format consistency.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Packing format compatibility is maintained
The verification shows that:
- The new
contract.PackBridgeCallbackmaintains identical parameter ordering and types- It uses a dedicated ABI definition (
bridgeCallbackABI) for consistent packing- The implementation is properly tested in
contract_test.go- The function simply delegates to the ABI's Pack method with "bridgeCallback" selector, ensuring format consistency
The refactoring from
typestocontractpackage is a safe organizational change that preserves the cross-chain compatibility.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the packing format consistency between old and new implementations # Check for any test cases comparing old vs new implementations rg -A 10 "PackBridgeCallback" --type go --glob "*_test.go" # Look for any migration code or compatibility layers ast-grep --pattern 'func PackBridgeCallback($_) { $$$ }'Length of output: 1303
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the implementation details of PackBridgeCallback ast-grep --pattern 'func PackBridgeCallback(sender, receiver common.Address, tokens []common.Address, amounts []*big.Int, data, memo []byte) ([]byte, error) { $$$ }' # Check for any references to the old implementation rg -A 5 "types\.PackBridgeCallback" --type go # Look for the ABI definition that this function uses rg -A 10 "BridgeABI|bridgeABI" --type goLength of output: 2917
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the ABI definition for bridgeCallback rg -B 5 -A 5 '"bridgeCallback"' --type json # Look for the interface definition file fd -e json -e abi "IBridgeCallback"Length of output: 81
x/erc20/keeper/keeper.go (1)
47-47: LGTM! Constructor parameter type updated consistently.The parameter type change in
NewKeepermatches the struct field modification, maintaining consistency.contract/erc20_abi.go (4)
Line range hint
22-153: LGTM! Consistent refactoring of existing methods.The changes to use the private
abifield are consistent across all methods while maintaining the same functionality and error handling patterns.
157-162: LGTM! New methods follow consistent patterns.The
PackDepositandPackTransferOwnershipmethods are well-implemented, following the established error handling patterns.Also applies to: 173-178
12-12: Verify the impact of ABI field visibility change.The change from public
ABIto privateabifollows Go's encapsulation best practices. However, this is a breaking change that might affect external packages that were directly accessing theABIfield.Also applies to: 17-17
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the usage of the ABI field.
The previous results showed test files accessing the ABI field, but we need to see the specific usage context and find all potential consumers of this package to properly assess the impact of this visibility change.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
The ABI field visibility change is safe to proceed
The change from public
ABIto privateabiis safe because:
- All direct access to the ABI field is internal to the package itself (in
contract/erc20_abi.goandcontract/erc20_token.go)- External packages are using the provided methods to interact with the ABI functionality rather than accessing the field directly
- Test files that show
.ABIusage are actually using different types/packages (likeGetERC721().ABI,wfx.ABI, etc.) and not the modified ERC20 ABI field🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for direct access to the ABI field that might be broken rg -l "\.ABI\." --type goLength of output: 158
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for specific usage of ABI field in test files rg -A 5 "\.ABI\." tests/evm_test.go tests/evm_suite.go # Also search for any imports of the contract package to find potential consumers rg '".*contract"' --type go # Look for any other potential ABI-related usage rg -i "\.abi\." --type goLength of output: 26385
165-170: Verify the use of "withdraw0" function name.The function name "withdraw0" seems unusual and might indicate versioning. Consider:
- Is this intentional versioning?
- Should we use a more descriptive name like "withdrawTo" if it's not for versioning?
- Does this match the actual function name in the smart contract?
✅ Verification successful
Let me try to gather more information with different search patterns and commands.
This should help us find:
- Any Solidity contract files that might contain the withdraw function
- Usage of withdraw functions in Go code with surrounding context
- ABI files that might define the interface
- Interface definitions in Solidity that might contain withdraw function signatures
Let me try another search pattern to find the relevant contract interfaces and implementations.
This should help us:
- Find the actual Solidity contract implementation
- Get more context around the withdraw0 function usage
- Find any ABI definitions that specify the withdraw function name
Based on the search results, I can now provide a definitive response about the "withdraw0" function name.
The "withdraw0" function name is correct and intentional.
The search results show that this is a generated binding for the WFXUpgradable contract's overloaded withdraw function. The contract has two withdraw methods:
withdraw(uint256 value)- Single parameter versionwithdraw(address to, uint256 value)- Two parameter versionThe Go bindings automatically append a number to handle the overloaded function, making the two-parameter version "withdraw0" to distinguish it from the single parameter version. This is standard practice in Go bindings for Solidity contracts with overloaded functions.
This is confirmed by:
- The WFXUpgradable contract's ABI showing both withdraw functions
- The generated Go bindings in contract/wfxupgradable.sol.go showing the "withdraw0" binding for the two-parameter version
- The consistent usage in the ERC20 test suite (x/evm/testutil/erc20.go)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for withdraw function definitions in Solidity contracts rg -A 5 "function withdraw" --type solidity # Search for withdraw0 function calls in Go code rg "withdraw0" --type goLength of output: 158
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Solidity files first fd -e sol # Search for withdraw function in Go files with more context rg -B 2 -A 2 "withdraw" --type go # Search for ABI-related files fd -e abi -e json # Try to find any contract interface definitions rg -A 10 "interface.*{" --type solidityLength of output: 67377
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Solidity contract files that might contain withdraw function fd -e sol | xargs cat # Search for withdraw function definitions in Go files with more context rg -B 5 -A 5 'withdraw0' --type go # Search for ABI-related files that might contain withdraw function definitions fd -e abi -e json | xargs grep -l "withdraw"Length of output: 148907
cmd/delegate.go (1)
144-144: Verify ERC20TokenKeeper integration.Let's verify the proper implementation of the
BalanceOfmethod and its usage pattern.✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the implementation details and usage patterns.
Let me check one final aspect to understand the complete integration.
ERC20TokenKeeper integration is properly implemented and verified
The verification shows a well-structured integration:
ERC20TokenKeeper.BalanceOfis properly implemented incontract/erc20_token.go- It correctly uses the underlying
QueryContractmethod from theCallerinterface- The implementation follows the standard ERC20 pattern for balance queries
- The error handling is appropriate, returning
big.NewInt(0)and the error on failureThe usage in
cmd/delegate.gois consistent with the implementation's contract.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify ERC20TokenKeeper implementation and usage # Test 1: Check ERC20TokenKeeper implementation echo "Checking ERC20TokenKeeper implementation..." ast-grep --pattern 'func (k *ERC20TokenKeeper) BalanceOf($ctx, $contract, $addr) (*big.Int, error)' # Test 2: Check for other usages of ERC20TokenKeeper.BalanceOf echo "Checking other usages of BalanceOf..." rg "ERC20TokenKeeper.*BalanceOf" -A 2Length of output: 731
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the complete implementation of ERC20TokenKeeper.BalanceOf echo "Checking complete BalanceOf implementation..." rg -A 15 "func \(k ERC20TokenKeeper\) BalanceOf" # Check NewERC20TokenKeeper implementation echo "Checking NewERC20TokenKeeper implementation..." rg "func NewERC20TokenKeeper" # Check for any test files related to ERC20TokenKeeper echo "Checking related test files..." fd "erc20.*test\.go"Length of output: 1534
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the complete ERC20TokenKeeper struct and its dependencies echo "Checking ERC20TokenKeeper struct..." rg -B 5 -A 5 "type ERC20TokenKeeper struct" # Check the Caller interface implementation echo "Checking Caller interface..." rg -B 2 -A 5 "type Caller interface" # Check QueryContract implementation echo "Checking QueryContract usage..." rg "QueryContract" -A 2Length of output: 3686
x/evm/testutil/erc20.go (1)
6-6: Consider consolidating ABI handling to avoid confusion.The struct currently has two potential sources of ABI:
- The embedded
contract.ERC20ABI- The new
abifield initialized withGetWFX().ABIThis could lead to confusion about which ABI should be used in different scenarios. Additionally, using
GetWFX().ABImight not be appropriate for all ERC20 tokens.Let's verify the ABI usage across the codebase:
Also applies to: 19-19, 26-26
testutil/helpers/suite.go (3)
31-31: LGTM!The import is correctly aliased and used consistently throughout the code.
42-42: LGTM!The new field follows Go naming conventions and is appropriately exported for test helper usage.
60-60: LGTM!The ERC20Token keeper is properly initialized with its dependency in the SetupTest method.
tests/evm_test.go (5)
27-33: LGTM! Code refactoring improves readability.The changes improve code organization by:
- Storing the WFX contract reference in a variable to avoid repeated calls
- Using the new
DeployProxyhelper method to simplify deployment logic
51-51: LGTM! Simplified contract deployment.Using
DeployERC20Contracthelper method improves code maintainability by encapsulating deployment logic.
81-81: LGTM! Consistent refactoring pattern.The change maintains consistency with other refactored methods by using the
DeployProxyhelper.
276-280: LGTM! Improved type safety in contract interactions.The changes enhance code quality by:
- Using the standardized deployment helper
- Leveraging type-safe ABI packing methods
294-300: LGTM! Enhanced contract verification.The changes improve test reliability by:
- Storing contract reference for cleaner access
- Adding bytecode verification to ensure correct deployment
tests/evm_suite.go (3)
29-29: LGTM! Good refactoring to centralize ERC20 ABI handling.Embedding
ERC20ABIin the test suite and initializing it in the constructor improves code organization and reduces duplication.Also applies to: 36-36
Line range hint
148-247: LGTM! Well-structured ERC20 interaction methods.The refactored methods maintain strong invariants with pre/post-condition checks while improving code organization through centralized ABI handling.
337-340: LGTM! Improved readability with local variable.Using a local variable for
erc1967Proxymakes the code more readable and maintainable.x/crosschain/types/types.go (3)
224-224: LGTM: Improved type safety with dedicated packing functionThe refactoring from generic ABI packing to a dedicated
PackOracleSetCheckpointfunction improves type safety while maintaining the same functionality.
Line range hint
346-355: LGTM: Enhanced parameter clarity with dedicated batch checkpoint packingThe switch to
PackSubmitBatchCheckpointimproves code organization by making parameter requirements explicit while maintaining the same functionality.
Line range hint
462-475: LGTM: Consistent refactoring with dedicated bridge call checkpoint packingThe implementation of
PackBridgeCallCheckpointmaintains consistency with the overall refactoring pattern while preserving the existing functionality.app/keepers/keepers.go (2)
65-65: Approved: Import Added for Contract PackageThe import
github.com/functionx/fx-core/v8/contractis appropriately added to utilize the functionalities provided by thecontractpackage.
366-366: Approved: Updated Erc20Keeper InitializationThe
Erc20Keeperinitialization now includescontract.NewERC20TokenKeeper(appKeepers.EvmKeeper), which correctly injects the new ERC20 token keeper dependency. This change enhances modularity and aligns with the updated architecture.contract/contract.go (1)
54-57: Ensure implementations ofCallerinterface are updated with new methods.The
Callerinterface now includesQueryContractandApplyContractmethods. Please verify that all types implementing this interface have these methods implemented to prevent compilation errors.Run the following script to identify types that implement
Callerbut may lack the new methods:✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the results from the shell script execution:
- The
Callerinterface is defined incontract/contract.gowith two methods:QueryContractandApplyContract.- The search results show that these methods are implemented in
x/evm/keeper/contract_code.goby theKeepertype.- Looking at the types containing "Caller" in their name, they are all auto-generated contract bindings (from Solidity contracts) and are not meant to implement our
Callerinterface. These types are:
- Various test contract callers (CrosschainTestCaller, ERC721TokenTestCaller, etc.)
- Interface contract callers (IBridgeFeeQuoteCaller, IErrorCaller, etc.)
These are standard Go-Ethereum generated bindings and serve a different purpose.Based on this analysis, I can generate the final response:
Implementation of
Callerinterface is properly handledThe
Callerinterface is correctly implemented by theKeepertype inx/evm/keeper/contract_code.go, which provides both required methods:
QueryContractApplyContractNo other types in the codebase are intended to implement this interface, as other types with "Caller" in their name are auto-generated contract bindings serving different purposes.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find all types that implement the `Caller` interface. # Search for types that are supposed to implement Caller rg -g '*.go' -t go 'type .*Caller' -A 5 # Check for implementations of the new methods echo "Searching for implementations of QueryContract and ApplyContract:" rg -g '*.go' -t go 'func.*QueryContract' -A 1 rg -g '*.go' -t go 'func.*ApplyContract' -A 1Length of output: 18897
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
ERC20TokenKeeperfor streamlined interactions with ERC20 contracts.Bug Fixes
Refactor
Chores