keys managements(KM) implementation on add-invoice #99
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to three CLI-related files: Changes
Possibly Related PRs
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/cli/take_sell.rs (1)
78-81: Enhance user feedback for invoice amountThe current message could be more informative and include validation of the amount.
Consider this improvement:
println!( - "Please add a lightning invoice with amount of {}", - order.amount + "Please add a lightning invoice with amount of {} sats. Ensure this matches your expected amount.", + order.amount.max(0) // Ensure non-negative amount );
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/cli/add_invoice.rs(3 hunks)src/cli/take_buy.rs(1 hunks)src/cli/take_sell.rs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/cli/take_buy.rs (1)
51-51: LGTM: Enhanced message filtering with specific action check
The addition of message.action == Action::PayInvoice check improves message filtering security by ensuring only relevant messages are processed.
Let's verify the message action handling across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the Action enum and its usage pattern.
Let me check one more thing to understand the message handling pattern across different actions.
LGTM: Action-specific message filtering is correctly implemented
The verification confirms that the Action::PayInvoice check in take_buy.rs follows the established pattern across the codebase. Each action handler (take_buy.rs, take_sell.rs) correctly filters messages based on both request_id and specific actions (PayInvoice, AddInvoice) as part of the request-response flow. The implementation is consistent with the security model where each handler only processes its relevant action types.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistent PayInvoice action handling
# Look for other places where PayInvoice action is handled to ensure consistency
ast-grep --pattern 'Action::PayInvoice'
Length of output: 154
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the Action enum definition and its usage
ast-grep --pattern 'enum Action'
# Find all places where message.action is checked
ast-grep --pattern 'message.action == Action::'
# Find all places where Action is used
rg "Action::" -A 2
Length of output: 2478
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find message handling patterns in take_buy.rs
cat src/cli/take_buy.rs
# Find similar patterns in take_sell.rs for comparison
cat src/cli/take_sell.rs
Length of output: 5286
src/cli/take_sell.rs (1)
76-76: LGTM: Improved message filtering with AddInvoice action
The addition of the specific action check aligns with the security improvements seen across the codebase.
Let's verify the consistency of AddInvoice action handling:
✅ Verification successful
Action handling is consistent and properly implemented
The verification shows that the Action::AddInvoice check is part of a consistent pattern across the codebase where message actions are verified alongside request IDs. Similar patterns are found in related files (take_buy.rs and add_invoice.rs) with their respective actions (PayInvoice and WaitingSellerToPay), all following the same security pattern of dual verification with request IDs.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistent AddInvoice action handling
# Look for other places where AddInvoice action is handled to ensure consistency
ast-grep --pattern 'Action::AddInvoice'
Length of output: 209
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the Action enum definition and its usage patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'enum Action {
$$$
}'
# Also check how Action is used in the context of request_id
ast-grep --pattern 'message.action == Action::$_'
Length of output: 453
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the full context of these message handling patterns
rg "message\.action.*Action::" -A 5 -B 5
Length of output: 2063
Add error handling for status update Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes