DevTools and Ruler deployment on arbitrum #1812
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThis pull request introduces new contract deployments for the Kleros V2 Neo ecosystem on the Arbitrum network. The changes include adding deployment configurations for Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested Labels
Suggested Reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (14)
🪧 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: 4
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
web-devtools/src/consts/chains.ts (1)
5-14: Consider adding defensive programming measuresThe dynamic chain selection could benefit from additional safety measures:
- Add fallback chains in case of misconfiguration
- Add runtime validation for chain IDs
export const DEFAULT_CHAIN = isProductionDeployment() ? arbitrum.id : arbitrumSepolia.id; + +// Validate chain IDs at runtime +if (!Object.values(alchemyToViemChain).includes(DEFAULT_CHAIN.toString())) { + console.warn(`Warning: DEFAULT_CHAIN ${DEFAULT_CHAIN} not found in supported networks`); +}web-devtools/src/context/Web3Provider.tsx (1)
42-44: Enhance error handling in getChainRpcUrlConsider adding input validation and more descriptive error messages.
export const getChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol, chainId: number) => { + if (!protocol || !["https", "wss"].includes(protocol)) { + throw new Error(`Invalid protocol: ${protocol}. Expected "https" or "wss"`); + } return alchemyURL(protocol, chainId); };web/src/context/Web3Provider.tsx (1)
Line range hint
52-64: Transport configuration is well structured!The implementation provides good resilience with HTTP/WebSocket fallback and proper environment handling.
Consider adding error logging for failed transport initialization:
const defaultTransport = (chain: Chain) => - fallback([http(chain.rpcUrls.default?.http?.[0]), webSocket(chain.rpcUrls.default?.webSocket?.[0])]); + fallback([ + http(chain.rpcUrls.default?.http?.[0] ?? ''), + webSocket(chain.rpcUrls.default?.webSocket?.[0] ?? '') + ], { + onTransportError: (error) => { + console.warn(`Transport error for chain ${chain.name}:`, error); + } + });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
contracts/README.md(1 hunks)contracts/deployments/arbitrum/DisputeResolverRulerNeo.json(1 hunks)contracts/deployments/arbitrum/KlerosCoreRulerNeo.json(1 hunks)contracts/deployments/arbitrum/KlerosCoreRulerNeo_Proxy.json(1 hunks)web-devtools/src/app/(main)/dispute-template/FetchDisputeRequestInput.tsx(1 hunks)web-devtools/src/consts/chains.ts(1 hunks)web-devtools/src/context/Web3Provider.tsx(4 hunks)web-devtools/wagmi.config.ts(2 hunks)web/src/context/Web3Provider.tsx(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (16)
web-devtools/src/consts/chains.ts (1)
5-5: Verify chain IDs match deployment configurations
The dynamic chain selection logic needs verification to ensure it matches the deployed contract addresses on respective networks.
Also applies to: 8-8, 12-12
✅ Verification successful
Chain IDs are correctly configured across the application
The chain configuration is consistent across the codebase:
- Production environment:
- Arbitrum (42161) as the default chain
- Gnosis Chain (100) for queries
- Non-production environment:
- Arbitrum Sepolia (421614) as the default chain
- Gnosis Chiado (10200) for queries
The chain IDs match the deployment configurations in hardhat.config.ts and are correctly used in the environment settings.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify chain IDs match deployment configurations
# Look for contract deployment files and configuration files
fd -e json -e ts "deployment|config" | xargs rg -l "42161|100|421614|10200"
Length of output: 105
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of hardhat.config.ts to verify chain configurations
cat contracts/hardhat.config.ts
Length of output: 10179
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's also check for any environment configuration files that might contain chain-related settings
fd -e ts -e js "env|environment" | xargs rg -l "chain|network|arbitrum|gnosis"
Length of output: 115
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any deployment scripts or contract addresses
fd "deploy|address" -e ts -e json | xargs rg -l "arbitrum|gnosis|42161|100|421614|10200"
Length of output: 129
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the environment constants file
cat web/src/consts/processEnvConsts.ts
Length of output: 1650
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's also check the deployment tokens file
cat contracts/deploy/utils/deployTokens.ts
Length of output: 2011
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual chains.ts file to see the complete chain configuration
cat web-devtools/src/consts/chains.ts
Length of output: 751
web-devtools/src/app/(main)/dispute-template/FetchDisputeRequestInput.tsx (1)
49-49: Verify transaction hash validity
The preset transaction hash should be verified to ensure it exists and contains the expected dispute request event.
web/src/context/Web3Provider.tsx (2)
23-42: Chain mapping and URL generation implementation is robust!
Good improvements:
- Error handling for unsupported chains
- Type-safe implementation with proper string literal types
- Clear network identification for Alchemy URLs
Line range hint 92-98: Web3Modal configuration is appropriate!
The default chain selection properly aligns with the deployment environment while maintaining theme consistency.
web-devtools/wagmi.config.ts (2)
7-8: Type imports and artifact configuration are well structured!
Good improvements:
- Clear type imports
- Addition of DisputeResolverRuler to support new deployments
Also applies to: 30-37
Line range hint 41-47: Chain configuration is robust!
The implementation provides good support for multiple chains with proper validation and error handling.
contracts/deployments/arbitrum/KlerosCoreRulerNeo_Proxy.json (2)
77-94: Contract metadata and bytecode configuration is appropriate!
Good practices observed:
- Recent Solidity version (0.8.24)
- Appropriate optimization settings
- Complete documentation and ABI
1-74: Verify the implementation contract!
The proxy contract is properly configured, but we should verify the implementation contract's deployment and code.
✅ Verification successful
Implementation contract verified successfully!
The implementation contract at 0x85093b5EDa4F2e2E2fEDae34Da91239D6a08e324 is properly deployed and contains the expected KlerosCoreRuler functionality. The proxy setup is correct with:
- Proxy at: 0xc0169e0B19aE02ac4fADD689260CF038726DFE13
- Implementation at: 0x85093b5EDa4F2e2E2fEDae34Da91239D6a08e324
- Both contracts are properly deployed with verified transaction hashes
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if implementation contract exists in deployments
implementation="0x85093b5EDa4F2e2E2fEDae34Da91239D6a08e324"
fd -t f "${implementation}" ../contracts/deployments/
Length of output: 251
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try searching within the repository root
implementation="0x85093b5EDa4F2e2E2fEDae34Da91239D6a08e324"
fd -t f "${implementation}"
# Also search for implementation contract files
fd -t f "KlerosCoreRulerNeo" contracts/deployments/arbitrum/
Length of output: 359
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation contract details
cat contracts/deployments/arbitrum/KlerosCoreRulerNeo_Implementation.json
# Also check the main contract file for completeness
cat contracts/deployments/arbitrum/KlerosCoreRulerNeo.json
Length of output: 65702
contracts/README.md (1)
17-21: LGTM! New contract deployments properly documented.
The new entries for DisputeResolverRulerNeo and KlerosCoreRulerNeo are well-documented with correct addresses matching their deployment files.
contracts/deployments/arbitrum/KlerosCoreRulerNeo.json (5)
13-118: Verify initialization safety in the proxy pattern.
The contract implements custom errors for initialization checks (AlreadyInitialized, NotInitializing). Let's verify the initialization sequence cannot be front-run.
✅ Verification successful
Let me generate additional verification scripts to check the initialization safety.
The first script will help us verify the initialize function implementation, the second will check for proper initializer modifiers, and the third will verify the proxy pattern implementation to ensure initialization safety.
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response. The verification shows that:
- The contract uses the
reinitializer(1)modifier in the initialize function - The contract inherits from
UUPSProxiableandInitializable - The constructor calls
_disableInitializers()to prevent initialization of the implementation contract - The initialize function properly sets all critical state variables
Initialization safety is properly implemented.
- The contract follows the UUPS proxy pattern with proper initialization controls
- The implementation contract is protected from initialization via
_disableInitializers()in constructor - The initialize function uses
reinitializer(1)to prevent multiple initializations - All critical state variables are set during initialization
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential initialization vulnerabilities
# Look for initialize function calls in transactions before the deployment
# Get the block number of deployment
DEPLOY_BLOCK=$(jq -r '.receipt.blockNumber' contracts/deployments/arbitrum/KlerosCoreRulerNeo.json)
# Search for initialize calls before deployment
rg -A 2 "function initialize.*governor.*pinakion.*courtParameters"
Length of output: 65715
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for initialize function implementation and check for initializer modifier
ast-grep --pattern 'function initialize($$$) {
$$$
}'
# Search for initializer modifier usage
rg -A 2 "reinitializer|initializer"
# Search for proxy implementation
rg -A 2 "UUPSProxiable|ERC1967Proxy"
Length of output: 77045
799-842: Verify role assignment and access control.
The contract implements multiple roles (governor, ruler, arbitrator). Let's verify the role assignment process and access controls.
✅ Verification successful
Let me generate another script to check the role assignment implementations:
Let me try a different search pattern to find the role assignments:
Let me try again without specifying the file type:
Based on the search results and the original code, I can now generate the final response:
Role assignments and access controls are properly implemented
The contract implements proper access control for role changes:
changeGovernoris protected byonlyByGovernormodifierchangeRuleris protected byRulerOnlymodifier- Role changes emit appropriate events to track changes
- Role state variables are properly defined and scoped
The implementation follows best practices:
- Clear error messages for unauthorized access
- Consistent modifier usage
- Events for role changes
- State variable visibility correctly set to public
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check role assignments and access controls
# Look for role changes and their restrictions
# Search for role assignments and access control modifiers
rg -A 5 "(GovernorOnly|RulerOnly|function changeRuler)"
Length of output: 66642
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for role assignment implementations and access control modifiers
ast-grep --pattern 'function changeGovernor($_, $_) {
$$$
}'
# Also check for ruler assignment
ast-grep --pattern 'function changeRuler($_, $_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 126
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for role assignments and their modifiers
rg -B 2 -A 5 "function change(Governor|Ruler)" --type sol
# Also check for role-related state variables
rg -B 2 "^[[:space:]]*(address|mapping).*(\bruler|\bgovernor)" --type sol
Length of output: 191
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for role assignments and their modifiers
rg -B 2 -A 5 "function change(Governor|Ruler)"
# Also check for role-related state variables and modifiers
rg -B 2 "(address public (governor|ruler)|onlyBy(Governor|Ruler)|modifier onlyBy)"
Length of output: 65669
672-714: Verify fee calculation logic and currency rate updates.
The contract handles fees in multiple currencies with rate conversions. Let's verify the rate update mechanism and fee calculation logic.
Also applies to: 776-798
✅ Verification successful
Let me generate additional scripts to verify the fee calculation logic and currency rate updates.
The first script will help us find the actual implementation of arbitrationCost() function, while the second one will help us find any rate-related functions that affect fee calculations. This will give us a better understanding of how fees are calculated and if there are any rate update mechanisms.
Let me generate one more script to verify the fee calculation implementation.
This will help us find the actual implementation of arbitrationCost() and related fee calculation functions to verify the fee calculation logic.
Based on the code analysis from the scripts, I can now generate the final response regarding the fee calculation and currency rate updates.
Fee calculation and currency rate updates are properly implemented
The contract has a robust fee handling system with:
- Secure rate updates through
changeCurrencyRates()function that can only be called by governor - Proper fee token conversion using
convertEthToTokenAmount()with rate and decimal handling - Rate validation and storage in
CurrencyRatestruct withrateInEthandrateDecimalsfields - Fee token acceptance control via
changeAcceptedFeeTokens()
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check fee calculation and currency rate updates
# Look for potential issues in rate calculations
# Search for currency rate updates and fee calculations
rg -A 10 "function (arbitrationCost|changeCurrencyRates|convertEthToTokenAmount)"
Length of output: 66521
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for fee calculation and rate update implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'function arbitrationCost($$$) {
$$$
}'
# Also search for rate-related functions
rg -A 5 "function (changeCurrencyRates|convertEthToTokenAmount|convertTokenAmountToEth)"
Length of output: 70461
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for arbitrationCost implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'function arbitrationCost($$$) {
$$$
return $_;
}'
# Also search for fee-related functions
rg -A 5 "arbitrationCost|appealCost"
Length of output: 76373
1487-1504: Verify upgrade safety in UUPS implementation.
The contract uses UUPS proxy pattern with upgrade functionality. Let's verify the upgrade mechanism's safety.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the upgrade safety by checking for access controls and implementation validation.
Let me search for more specific upgrade controls and authorization patterns.
Let me search for the implementation of upgrade controls in the contract.
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
UUPS upgrade implementation is secure with proper governor controls
The contract implements UUPS proxy pattern with robust access controls:
- Upgrades can only be executed by the governor through
upgradeToAndCall - Governor is properly initialized in constructor and can only be changed by current governor
- Implementation validation is performed before upgrade using
proxiableUUID - Proper checks for delegate calls and implementation compatibility
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check upgrade safety
# Look for upgrade controls and implementation validation
# Search for upgrade functions and their safety checks
rg -A 5 "function (upgradeToAndCall|proxiableUUID)"
Length of output: 65590
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for _authorizeUpgrade function implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'function _authorizeUpgrade($_, $_) {
$$$
}'
# Search for governor-related access controls
rg -A 3 "onlyByGovernor|require\(.*governor.*\)"
Length of output: 65655
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for _authorizeUpgrade implementation and governor controls
ast-grep --pattern 'function _authorizeUpgrade($param, $_) {
require($$$governor$$$);
$$$
}'
# Search for governor initialization and changes
rg -A 3 "governor = |initialize.*governor"
Length of output: 65680
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for upgrade-related functions and modifiers
rg -A 5 "function _authorizeUpgrade|modifier onlyByGovernor|upgradeToAndCall"
# Search for governor initialization and access control
rg -A 3 "initialize.*governor|require\(.*governor.*\)"
Length of output: 65672
119-619: Verify event emission in critical state changes.
The contract has well-structured events with proper parameter indexing. Let's verify event emission in key state-changing functions.
contracts/deployments/arbitrum/DisputeResolverRulerNeo.json (2)
264-280: Verify ruling validation and constraints.
The contract implements ruling functionality with validation checks. Let's verify the ruling constraints and validation logic.
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for more specific information about ruling validation.
Let me try a different search pattern to find ruling validation logic.
Let me try one more search to find the ruling validation implementation.
Let me check the specific implementation in the DisputeResolver contract since it appears most relevant.
Based on the implementation found in DisputeResolver.sol, I can now provide a final response about the ruling validation:
Ruling validation is properly implemented with appropriate constraints.
The rule function includes the following validations:
- Only the arbitrator can execute the ruling (msg.sender check)
- Ruling must be within valid options (<=numberOfRulingOptions)
- Dispute cannot be ruled twice (isRuled check)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check ruling validation
# Look for ruling constraints and validation
# Search for ruling validation
rg -A 5 "function rule.*_ruling"
Length of output: 65571
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for rule function implementations and validation logic
ast-grep --pattern 'function rule($_, $_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 54
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for rule function implementations and validation logic
# Try different patterns to find ruling validation
# Search for rule function with ripgrep
rg -U "function rule.*\{[\s\S]+?\}" -A 10
# Also search for ruling-related constants or enums
rg "_ruling|RULING|Ruling" -A 3
Length of output: 65613
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for rule function implementation in the contract
rg -U "function rule.*\{[\s\S]+?\}" --type sol
# Also search for rule-related code
rg -l "rule.*_ruling"
Length of output: 3328
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the DisputeResolver implementation
cat contracts/src/arbitration/arbitrables/DisputeResolver.sol
Length of output: 7140
4-19: Verify constructor parameters and initialization.
The contract is initialized with arbitrator and template registry addresses. Let's verify these addresses are valid contracts.
| const defaultTransport = (chain: Chain) => | ||
| fallback([http(chain.rpcUrls.default?.http?.[0]), webSocket(chain.rpcUrls.default?.webSocket?.[0])]); | ||
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| [arbitrumSepolia.id]: alchemyTransport(arbitrumSepolia), | ||
| [isProduction ? arbitrum.id : arbitrumSepolia.id]: isProduction | ||
| ? alchemyTransport(arbitrum) | ||
| : alchemyTransport(arbitrumSepolia), | ||
| [isProduction ? gnosis.id : gnosisChiado.id]: isProduction | ||
| ? defaultTransport(gnosis) | ||
| : defaultTransport(gnosisChiado), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Validate chain support before creating transports
The transport configuration should validate chain support to prevent runtime errors.
const defaultTransport = (chain: Chain) => {
+ if (!chain.rpcUrls.default?.http?.[0]) {
+ throw new Error(`No default RPC URL found for chain ${chain.id}`);
+ }
fallback([http(chain.rpcUrls.default?.http?.[0]), webSocket(chain.rpcUrls.default?.webSocket?.[0])]);
};Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| title: "Dispute Resolver - Compensation Claim", | ||
| txnHash: "0x01db1d330acef1a0df007b0f9dcb56b7a88aeb49687f95cb5c58d5c36526ef70", | ||
| chainId: 42161, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid hardcoding chain IDs in presets
Consider using the chain constants from chains.ts to maintain consistency.
- chainId: 42161,
+ chainId: arbitrum.id,Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| const alchemyApiKey = import.meta.env.ALCHEMY_API_KEY; | ||
| if (!alchemyApiKey) { | ||
| throw new Error("Alchemy API key is not set in ALCHEMY_API_KEY environment variable."); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Required environment variables are not documented
The environment variables ALCHEMY_API_KEY and WALLETCONNECT_PROJECT_ID are used in the codebase but not documented in README.md or any example environment files. While they are properly configured in vite.config.js with the correct envPrefix, developers won't know they need to set these variables.
- Add documentation for required environment variables in README.md or create a
.env.examplefile - Include instructions on how to obtain these API keys (Alchemy and WalletConnect)
🔗 Analysis chain
Environment variable validation looks good!
The validation for ALCHEMY_API_KEY and WALLETCONNECT_PROJECT_ID ensures the application won't start without required configuration.
Let's verify the environment variables are documented:
Also applies to: 72-75
Let me check if these environment variables might be documented in other common locations for environment configuration.
Let me check the actual content of these files to see how these environment variables are used and if there's any documentation within them.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if environment variables are documented
rg -l "ALCHEMY_API_KEY|WALLETCONNECT_PROJECT_ID" "README.md" || echo "Environment variables not documented in README.md"
Length of output: 169
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for environment variables documentation in common config files
fd -e env -e env.example -e env.sample -e env.template
rg -l "ALCHEMY_API_KEY|WALLETCONNECT_PROJECT_ID" $(fd -e env -e env.example -e env.sample -e env.template)
Length of output: 386
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check content of relevant files for environment variable documentation
echo "=== vite.config.js ==="
cat web/vite.config.js
echo -e "\n=== Looking for .env.example or similar files in web directory ==="
fd -e env.example -e env.sample -e env.template . web/
Length of output: 1048
| "inputs": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "bytes", | ||
| "name": "_arbitratorExtraData", | ||
| "type": "bytes" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "string", | ||
| "name": "_disputeTemplate", | ||
| "type": "string" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "string", | ||
| "name": "_disputeTemplateDataMappings", | ||
| "type": "string" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "uint256", | ||
| "name": "_numberOfRulingOptions", | ||
| "type": "uint256" | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "name": "createDisputeForTemplate", | ||
| "outputs": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "uint256", | ||
| "name": "disputeID", | ||
| "type": "uint256" | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "stateMutability": "payable", | ||
| "type": "function" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "inputs": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "bytes", | ||
| "name": "_arbitratorExtraData", | ||
| "type": "bytes" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "string", | ||
| "name": "_disputeTemplateUri", | ||
| "type": "string" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "uint256", | ||
| "name": "_numberOfRulingOptions", | ||
| "type": "uint256" | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "name": "createDisputeForTemplateUri", | ||
| "outputs": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "internalType": "uint256", | ||
| "name": "disputeID", | ||
| "type": "uint256" | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "stateMutability": "payable", | ||
| "type": "function" | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the code analysis, I can now provide the final response:
Template handling needs additional validation
The dispute template handling implementation has the following concerns:
- The
setDisputeTemplatefunction in DisputeTemplateRegistry lacks input validation for template data and mappings - No checks for empty/malformed templates or URIs in either the DisputeResolver or DisputeTemplateRegistry
- The template ID is simply incremented without any validation or duplicate checks
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify dispute template handling and URI validation.
The contract supports both template-based and URI-based dispute creation. Let's verify the template handling and URI validation.
Let me search for the implementation of template handling and URI validation.
Let me search for the implementation of the internal _createDispute function to verify the template handling.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check template handling and URI validation
# Look for template processing and URI validation
# Search for template and URI handling
rg -A 5 "function (createDisputeForTemplate|createDisputeForTemplateUri)"
Length of output: 87467
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the internal _createDispute function implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'function _createDispute(
$$$
) internal $$ {
$$$
}'
# Search for template registry interactions
rg -A 5 "setDisputeTemplate"
Length of output: 75737
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the internal _createDispute function implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'function _createDispute(
$$$
) internal $$ {
$$$
templateRegistry.setDisputeTemplate($$$);
$$$
}'
# Search for validation checks in the template registry
rg -A 5 "function setDisputeTemplate" "contracts/src/arbitration/DisputeTemplateRegistry.sol"
Length of output: 451
✅ Deploy Preview for kleros-v2-neo ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for kleros-v2-neo-devtools ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for kleros-v2-university ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for kleros-v2-testnet-devtools ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for kleros-v2-testnet ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
scripts/cancel-all-netlify-builds.sh (1)
Line range hint
1-29: Consider adding error handling and rate limiting.To improve the robustness of the script, consider:
- Adding error handling for failed API calls
- Implementing rate limiting to avoid hitting Netlify API limits
- Adding logging for better observability
Example implementation:
#!/usr/bin/env bash + # Add error handling + set -euo pipefail + + # Add rate limiting function + rate_limit() { + sleep 1 # Basic rate limiting + } + + # Add logging + log() { + echo "[$(date +'%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')] $1" + } function cancelSiteDeploy() #sideId { local sideId=$1 + log "Processing site: $sideId" readarray -t builds < <(netlify api listSiteDeploys -d '{ "site_id": "'$sideId'", "state": "new"}' | jq --compact-output '.[]') for build in "${builds[@]}" do local name=$(jq -r .name <<< $build) local branch=$(jq -r .branch <<< $build) if [[ "$branch" == "dev" || "$branch" == "master" || "$branch" == "feat/lang-direction" || "$branch" == "feat/devtools-neo" ]]; then continue; fi - echo "Cancelling build for $name $branch" + log "Cancelling build for $name $branch" netlify api cancelSiteDeploy -d '{ "deploy_id": "'$(jq -r .id <<< $build)'"}' > /dev/null + rate_limit done }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
contracts/lib/forge-std(1 hunks)scripts/cancel-all-netlify-builds.sh(2 hunks)web-devtools/src/app/(main)/ruler/SelectArbitrable.tsx(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- contracts/lib/forge-std
🔇 Additional comments (4)
web-devtools/src/app/(main)/ruler/SelectArbitrable.tsx (2)
145-146: LGTM: Address display update is consistent
The update to use the extracted address in the Copiable component is consistent with the chain validation logic and properly displays the shortened address.
136-139: Verify chain configuration for Arbitrum deployment
Since this PR is about deploying to Arbitrum, let's verify that the DEFAULT_CHAIN configuration aligns with the intended deployment chain.
✅ Verification successful
Chain configuration is correctly set up for Arbitrum deployment
The verification confirms that:
DEFAULT_CHAINis properly configured to use Arbitrum mainnet in production and Arbitrum Sepolia in non-production environments:
export const DEFAULT_CHAIN = isProductionDeployment() ? arbitrum.id : arbitrumSepolia.id;- The
klerosCoreAddressconfiguration in the testnet deployment matches the chain validation:
export const klerosCoreAddress = {
421614: "0xE8442307d36e9bf6aB27F1A009F95CE8E11C3479",
} as const;where 421614 is the chain ID for Arbitrum Sepolia.
The chain validation in the code is working as intended to ensure deployment consistency.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify chain configuration for Arbitrum deployment
# Check DEFAULT_CHAIN configuration
echo "Checking DEFAULT_CHAIN configuration..."
rg -A 3 "DEFAULT_CHAIN.*=.*" "web-devtools/src/consts/"
# Check klerosCoreAddress configuration
echo "Checking klerosCoreAddress configuration..."
rg -A 5 "klerosCoreAddress.*=.*" "web-devtools/src/hooks/contracts/"
Length of output: 788
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for klerosCoreAddress configuration in the entire codebase
echo "Searching for klerosCoreAddress configuration..."
rg -A 5 "klerosCoreAddress.*=.*"
# Let's also check the chain configuration imports
echo "Checking chain configuration imports..."
rg -A 3 "import.*arbitrum.*from"
# Let's verify the isProductionDeployment function
echo "Checking isProductionDeployment implementation..."
rg -A 3 "isProductionDeployment.*=.*"
Length of output: 11183
scripts/cancel-all-netlify-builds.sh (2)
11-11: LGTM: Branch protection expanded for new feature branches.
The addition of feat/lang-direction and feat/devtools-neo to protected branches aligns with the PR objectives for devtools deployment.
27-29: LGTM: Cancellation calls added for new sites.
The new cancelSiteDeploy calls are correctly added for the new site IDs, maintaining consistency with existing patterns.
| const [[chainId, address]] = Object.entries(klerosCoreAddress); | ||
| if (chainId !== DEFAULT_CHAIN.toString()) { | ||
| throw new Error(`Kleros Core is not deployed on chain ${chainId}`); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Move chain validation to useEffect
The chain validation logic should be moved out of the render function to avoid potential issues with React's rendering lifecycle. Throwing errors during render can lead to poor user experience and break React's error boundaries.
Consider refactoring to:
+ useEffect(() => {
+ const [[chainId, address]] = Object.entries(klerosCoreAddress);
+ if (chainId !== DEFAULT_CHAIN.toString()) {
+ console.error(`Kleros Core is not deployed on chain ${chainId}`);
+ // Handle the error gracefully, e.g., show an error message or redirect
+ }
+ }, []);
const [[chainId, address]] = Object.entries(klerosCoreAddress);
- if (chainId !== DEFAULT_CHAIN.toString()) {
- throw new Error(`Kleros Core is not deployed on chain ${chainId}`);
- }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
scripts/cancel-all-netlify-builds.sh
Outdated
| v2Uni="085e1305-e434-4d36-91a4-88e8cbc3aa46" | ||
| v2DevtoolsTestnet="7b25b1a8-5fd4-41f7-8fd0-7fe4202229fb" | ||
| v2Neo="46f40014-ff00-4a9a-a1a2-4fefeeb1606a" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Netlify site IDs need to be updated to match documentation
The site IDs in the script don't fully match what's documented in web/README.md:
v2NeoID matches (46f40014-ff00-4a9a-a1a2-4fefeeb1606a)v2UniID matches (085e1305-e434-4d36-91a4-88e8cbc3aa46)v2DevtoolsTestnetID (7b25b1a8-5fd4-41f7-8fd0-7fe4202229fb) doesn't match the documented testnet ID (86d94ae8-f655-46a4-a859-d68696173f3a)
Please update the v2DevtoolsTestnet ID in the script to match the one documented in web/README.md.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the new Netlify site IDs.
The new site IDs appear to be valid UUIDs, but it's important to verify they correspond to the correct Netlify sites.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the site IDs correspond to the correct Netlify sites
# Expected: Site names should match their respective variables
# Check site names for the new IDs
for site_id in "085e1305-e434-4d36-91a4-88e8cbc3aa46" "7b25b1a8-5fd4-41f7-8fd0-7fe4202229fb" "46f40014-ff00-4a9a-a1a2-4fefeeb1606a"; do
netlify api getSite -d "{\"site_id\": \"$site_id\"}" | jq -r '.name'
done
Length of output: 974
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the git history to see if these IDs were discussed or documented
rg -l "085e1305-e434-4d36-91a4-88e8cbc3aa46|7b25b1a8-5fd4-41f7-8fd0-7fe4202229fb|46f40014-ff00-4a9a-a1a2-4fefeeb1606a" --type md
# Also check for any documentation or configuration files that might reference these IDs
rg -l "v2Uni|v2DevtoolsTestnet|v2Neo" --type yaml --type toml --type md
Length of output: 218
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of web/README.md to see how these IDs are documented
cat web/README.md
# Also check if there are any other shell scripts that might be using these IDs
rg -l "085e1305-e434-4d36-91a4-88e8cbc3aa46|7b25b1a8-5fd4-41f7-8fd0-7fe4202229fb|46f40014-ff00-4a9a-a1a2-4fefeeb1606a" --type sh
Length of output: 1940
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 4a3f30b and detected 0 issues on this pull request. View more on Code Climate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
web-devtools/src/utils/getDisputeRequestParamsFromTxn.ts (1)
Line range hint
8-36: Implementation looks good with a minor suggestion for error loggingThe function implementation is well-structured with proper TypeScript types, error handling, and event parsing. However, the error logging could be more informative.
Consider enhancing the error logging to include more context:
} catch (e) { - console.error(e); + console.error(`Failed to get dispute request params for tx ${hash} on chain ${chainId}:`, e); return undefined; }web-devtools/src/context/Web3Provider.tsx (1)
57-62: Enhance type safety in chain selection logic.The conditional chain selection could benefit from stronger type safety.
Consider this improvement:
+type SupportedChainId = typeof arbitrum.id | typeof arbitrumSepolia.id | typeof gnosis.id | typeof gnosisChiado.id; +const getChainPair = (prodChain: Chain, devChain: Chain) => { + return isProduction ? prodChain : devChain; +}; return { - [isProduction ? arbitrum.id : arbitrumSepolia.id]: isProduction - ? alchemyTransport(arbitrum) - : alchemyTransport(arbitrumSepolia), - [isProduction ? gnosis.id : gnosisChiado.id]: isProduction - ? defaultTransport(gnosis) - : defaultTransport(gnosisChiado), + [getChainPair(arbitrum, arbitrumSepolia).id]: alchemyTransport(getChainPair(arbitrum, arbitrumSepolia)), + [getChainPair(gnosis, gnosisChiado).id]: defaultTransport(getChainPair(gnosis, gnosisChiado)), [mainnet.id]: alchemyTransport(mainnet), } as Record<SupportedChainId, ReturnType<typeof fallback>>;
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
web-devtools/src/context/Web3Provider.tsx(5 hunks)web-devtools/src/utils/getDisputeRequestParamsFromTxn.ts(1 hunks)web-devtools/src/utils/wagmiConfig.ts(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- web-devtools/src/utils/wagmiConfig.ts
🔇 Additional comments (4)
web-devtools/src/utils/getDisputeRequestParamsFromTxn.ts (1)
4-4: Verify the wagmiConfig import change
The import path change aligns with the PR objectives of improving chain handling and environment-specific configurations. Let's verify that all other files have been updated consistently.
✅ Verification successful
The previous search might have failed due to the specific import syntax pattern. Let's try a broader search to understand the usage of wagmiConfig and verify the directory structure first.
Import change is correctly implemented
The search results confirm that wagmiConfig is now properly exported from and used via context/Web3Provider across both the web and web-devtools packages. The old import path utils/wagmiConfig is not found anywhere in the codebase, indicating a complete and consistent migration. The change aligns with the centralization of Wagmi configuration in the Web3Provider context.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining references to the old wagmiConfig import path
# and verify the new import is used consistently across the codebase
echo "Checking for old wagmiConfig import references..."
rg -l "from ['\"]utils/wagmiConfig['\"]"
echo "Verifying new wagmiConfig import usage..."
rg -l "from ['\"]context/Web3Provider['\"].*wagmiConfig"
Length of output: 311
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find wagmiConfig usage and imports
echo "Searching for any wagmiConfig references..."
rg "wagmiConfig" -A 2 -B 2
echo "Searching for files in utils directory..."
fd . "src/utils"
echo "Searching for Web3Provider context..."
fd "Web3Provider" "src"
Length of output: 10258
web-devtools/src/context/Web3Provider.tsx (3)
9-10: LGTM! Clean imports and constant definition.
The new imports and constant improve code organization and readability by centralizing environment-specific logic.
Also applies to: 19-19
53-54: Validate chain support before creating transports.
The transport configuration should validate chain support to prevent runtime errors.
75-75: LGTM! Consistent configuration exports.
The wagmiConfig export and defaultChain configuration align well with the environment-based setup.
Also applies to: 84-84
| export const getChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol, chainId: number) => { | ||
| return alchemyURL(protocol, chainId); | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| export const getDefaultChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol) => { | ||
| return getChainRpcUrl(protocol, DEFAULT_CHAIN); | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add chain validation in utility functions.
While the functions provide a clean API, they should validate the chain support before generating URLs.
Consider this improvement:
export const getChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol, chainId: number) => {
+ if (!ALL_CHAINS.some(chain => chain.id === chainId)) {
+ throw new Error(`Chain ID ${chainId} is not supported in ALL_CHAINS`);
+ }
return alchemyURL(protocol, chainId);
};
export const getDefaultChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol) => {
+ if (!ALL_CHAINS.some(chain => chain.id === DEFAULT_CHAIN)) {
+ throw new Error(`Default chain ${DEFAULT_CHAIN} is not supported in ALL_CHAINS`);
+ }
return getChainRpcUrl(protocol, DEFAULT_CHAIN);
};📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| export const getChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol, chainId: number) => { | |
| return alchemyURL(protocol, chainId); | |
| }; | |
| export const getDefaultChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol) => { | |
| return getChainRpcUrl(protocol, DEFAULT_CHAIN); | |
| }; | |
| export const getChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol, chainId: number) => { | |
| if (!ALL_CHAINS.some(chain => chain.id === chainId)) { | |
| throw new Error(`Chain ID ${chainId} is not supported in ALL_CHAINS`); | |
| } | |
| return alchemyURL(protocol, chainId); | |
| }; | |
| export const getDefaultChainRpcUrl = (protocol: AlchemyProtocol) => { | |
| if (!ALL_CHAINS.some(chain => chain.id === DEFAULT_CHAIN)) { | |
| throw new Error(`Default chain ${DEFAULT_CHAIN} is not supported in ALL_CHAINS`); | |
| } | |
| return getChainRpcUrl(protocol, DEFAULT_CHAIN); | |
| }; |
jaybuidl
force-pushed
the
feat/devtools-neo
branch
from
d69a428 to
f00f73d
Compare
|
Also aligned configuration between court and devtools.
PR-Codex overview
This PR focuses on updating the dispute resolution system by modifying various configurations, enhancing error handling, and adding new contracts for the Kleros arbitration system. It also refines the integration with the
wagmilibrary for managing blockchain connections.Detailed summary
wagmiConfigimport fromutils/wagmiConfig.FetchDisputeRequestInput.tsxwith a new preset for "Dispute Resolver - Compensation Claim".SelectArbitrable.tsxfor chain deployment.DEFAULT_CHAINlogic inchains.tsbased on production state.Web3Provider.tsx.Web3Provider.tsx.wagmiConfigfor better accessibility inWeb3Provider.tsx.KlerosCoreRulerNeoandDisputeResolverRulerNeo.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
DisputeResolverRulerNeoandKlerosCoreRulerNeowith their respective addresses in the documentation.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores