adds test to CalldataVerificationFacet to address Olympix error

[0xDEnYO]

Which Jira task belongs to this PR?

Why did I implement it this way?

Checklist before requesting a review

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• This pull request is as small as possible and only tackles one problem
• I have added tests that cover the functionality / test the bug
• For new facets: I have checked all points from this list: https://www.notion.so/lifi/New-Facet-Contract-Checklist-157f0ff14ac78095a2b8f999d655622e
• I have updated any required documentation

Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)

• I have checked that any arbitrary calls to external contracts are validated and or restricted
• I have checked that any privileged calls (i.e. storage modifications) are validated and or restricted
• I have ensured that any new contracts have had AT A MINIMUM 1 preliminary audit conducted on by <company/auditor>

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A new test function, testRevert_WhenCallToAddressIsTooShort, has been added to the CalldataVerificationFacetTest contract. This test verifies that the validateDestinationCalldata method correctly reverts when provided with a callTo address shorter than the required 20 bytes. It sets up a StargateData structure, encodes the call data, and uses an invalid callTo (with hex value 1234) to ensure that the method responds with the expected error message.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
test/.../CalldataVerificationFacet.t.sol	Added the testRevert_WhenCallToAddressIsTooShort function to verify that validateDestinationCalldata reverts when provided with an address shorter than 20 bytes.

Possibly related PRs

• Test PR - security alerts 1 #1018: Introduced the validateDestinationCalldata function in test2.sol, which relates to validating the same functionality.
• Deprecate hyphen facet #865: Modified method selectors in the CalldataVerificationFacetTest contract, impacting tests related to address validation.
• Update CalldataVerificationFacet [CalldataVerificationFacet v1.3.0] #1003: Simplified the logic of validateDestinationCalldata by removing checks for StandardizedCallFacet, directly affecting the address length validation.

Suggested labels

AuditNotRequired

Suggested reviewers

• ezynda3
• mirooon

Warning

Review ran into problems

🔥 Problems

Errors were encountered while retrieving linked issues.

Errors (1)

• JIRA integration encountered authorization issues. Please disconnect and reconnect the integration in the CodeRabbit UI.

---

📜 Recent review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7478318 and f9a5cea.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• test/solidity/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.t.sol (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)

• GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
• GitHub Check: run-unit-tests
• GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
• GitHub Check: run-unit-tests
• GitHub Check: generate-tag

🔇 Additional comments (1)

test/solidity/Facets/CalldataVerificationFacet.t.sol (1)

450-484: Good addition to improve error handling test coverage.

This test effectively checks that the validateDestinationCalldata method correctly rejects invalid destination addresses that are too short (less than 20 bytes), which appears to address the Olympix error mentioned in the PR objectives. The test follows the same structure as other tests in the file, making it consistent and easy to understand.

One minor suggestion that could further strengthen the test coverage would be to also test other invalid address scenarios, such as addresses that are too long or have invalid formats, to ensure comprehensive validation. However, the current implementation satisfies the specific requirement outlined in the PR.

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @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.

[lifi-action-bot]

Test Coverage Report

Line Coverage: 78.34% (2022 / 2581 lines)
Function Coverage: 83.33% ( 350 / 420 functions)
Branch Coverage: 44.15% ( 223 / 505 branches)
Test coverage (78.34%) is above min threshold (76%). Check passed.