Code optimization on release #424
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (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: 0
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/app/release.rs (1)
Tests needed for critical payment and order handling functions
The codebase appears to lack test coverage for the following critical functions in
release.rs:
do_payment: Payment processing and status handlingrelease_action: Order release workflowcheck_failure_retries: Payment retry logicget_child_order: Range order handlingGiven the significant changes to error handling and return types, adding tests is crucial for:
- Payment success/failure scenarios
- Order state transitions
- Error handling paths
- Range order creation logic
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-472: Verify test coverage for the refactored code.The changes to function signatures and return types are significant. Please ensure that:
- Unit tests are updated to cover the new return types
- Error cases are tested, especially for event creation
- Integration tests verify the end-to-end flow with the new ownership model
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for test files related to release.rs fd -e rs test_releaseLength of output: 23
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for test modules within release.rs echo "=== Checking for test modules in release.rs ===" rg "#\[cfg\(test\)\]" src/app/release.rs -A 5 echo -e "\n=== Searching for test files that might test release.rs ===" fd -e rs test fd -e rs -g "*release*" echo -e "\n=== Searching for files containing references to key functions ===" rg "fn.*test.*release" -g "*.rs" rg "use.*(release|release::)" -g "*.rs"Length of output: 736
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for tests in standard locations and references to key functions echo "=== Checking standard test locations ===" fd -t d "tests?" fd -t d "integration_tests?" echo -e "\n=== Searching for tests containing key function names ===" rg -g "*.rs" "do_payment|release_action|check_failure_retries|get_child_order" "tests?" || true rg -g "*.rs" "do_payment|release_action|check_failure_retries|get_child_order" "src" -C 2 | rg "#\[test\]" -B 5 -A 10 || true echo -e "\n=== Checking for any test modules in related files ===" rg "#\[cfg\(test\)\]" src/scheduler.rs src/app.rs src/app/admin_settle.rs -A 5Length of output: 746
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/app/release.rs (3)
164-164: Enhance warning message with more context.The warning message could be more descriptive by including additional context about the event type and failure reason.
- tracing::warn!("Failed sending event with order id: {}", child_order.id) + tracing::warn!("Failed sending child order event for order id: {}. This may affect order synchronization", child_order.id)
207-207: Remove unnecessary clone.Since the function takes ownership of
child_order, there's no need to clone it here.- let mut child_order = child_order.clone(); + let mut child_order = child_order;
426-438: Extract common event creation logic.The event creation logic is duplicated between
order_for_equalandorder_for_greater. Consider extracting it into a helper function.+ fn create_order_event(new_order: &mut Order, my_keys: &Keys) -> Result<Event> { + let tags = crate::nip33::order_to_tags(new_order, None); + let event = crate::nip33::new_event(my_keys, "", new_order.id.to_string(), tags) + .map_err(|e| { + tracing::error!("Failed to create event for order {}: {}", new_order.id, e); + e + })?; + new_order.event_id = event.id.to_string(); + Ok(event) + }Then use it in both functions:
new_order.max_amount = Some(new_max); new_order.fiat_amount = 0; - let tags = crate::nip33::order_to_tags(new_order, None); - let event = crate::nip33::new_event(my_keys, "", new_order.id.to_string(), tags)?; - new_order.event_id = event.id.to_string(); + let event = create_order_event(new_order, my_keys)?;
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/app/release.rs(6 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/app/release.rs (2)
355-382: Well-structured changes with improved error handling!The modifications to
get_child_ordershow good use of Rust idioms:
- Taking ownership of
orderis more idiomatic- Using
Optiontypes provides better control flow- Early returns with
Nonevalues handle invalid cases cleanly
410-423: Add error handling for event creation.The event creation could fail, but the error is silently propagated. Consider adding specific error handling or logging for better debugging.
let tags = crate::nip33::order_to_tags(new_order, None); - let event = crate::nip33::new_event(my_keys, "", new_order.id.to_string(), tags)?; + let event = crate::nip33::new_event(my_keys, "", new_order.id.to_string(), tags) + .map_err(|e| { + tracing::error!("Failed to create event for order {}: {}", new_order.id, e); + e + })?;
* Enhance warning message with more context. * Remove unnecessary clone. * Extract common event creation logic.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Refactor