Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(blob): potential inclusion proof has bug #1832

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 31, 2024
Merged

fix(blob): potential inclusion proof has bug #1832

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 31, 2024

Conversation

itsdevbear
Copy link
Contributor

@itsdevbear itsdevbear commented Jul 31, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • Enhanced the GetTopLevelRoots method to include an additional root element, improving functionality.
  • Bug Fixes
    • Addressed a potential oversight in the GetTopLevelRoots method to ensure accurate data representation.
  • Refactor
    • Simplified the BuildBlockBodyProof method by removing an unnecessary variable, improving code readability and performance without altering core functionality.

@itsdevbear itsdevbear requested a review from ocnc as a code owner July 31, 2024 19:56
@itsdevbear itsdevbear changed the title fix(blob): Kzg proof has bug fix(blob): potential inclusion proof has bug Jul 31, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 31, 2024

Walkthrough

The recent changes enhance the functionality of the GetTopLevelRoots method in the BeaconBlockBody struct by appending a new root element to its return value, which may address a previous oversight. Additionally, the BuildBlockBodyProof method in the SidecarFactory class has been streamlined by removing an unnecessary variable, directly passing the results from GetTopLevelRoots() to the Merkle tree creation function, improving code readability and performance.

Changes

Files Change Summary
mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/body.go Modified GetTopLevelRoots to append common.Root{} to the returned slice, potentially fixing a bug.
mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go Simplified BuildBlockBodyProof by removing the membersRoots variable, directly using the result of body.GetTopLevelRoots() in the merkle.NewTreeWithMaxLeaves call.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant BeaconBlockBody
    participant MerkleTree

    Client->>BeaconBlockBody: Call GetTopLevelRoots()
    BeaconBlockBody-->>Client: Return roots + common.Root{}
    
    Client->>MerkleTree: Call NewTreeWithMaxLeaves(roots)
    MerkleTree-->>Client: Return Merkle Tree
Loading

🐰 In the burrow, changes sprout,
A root added, without doubt!
Simplified paths, no clutter found,
In code's dance, joy does abound.
Hoppy updates, let's all cheer,
For clarity and speed are here! 🌼


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>.
    • 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 generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @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 as 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 resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

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.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 31, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 24.11%. Comparing base (90772c9) to head (b1066c1).

Files Patch % Lines
mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1832      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   24.10%   24.11%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         323      323              
  Lines       13905    13906       +1     
  Branches       19       19              
==========================================
+ Hits         3352     3354       +2     
+ Misses      10438    10437       -1     
  Partials      115      115              
Files Coverage Δ
mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/body.go 68.02% <100.00%> (+0.44%) ⬆️
mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 90772c9 and b1066c1.

Files selected for processing (2)
  • mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/body.go (1 hunks)
  • mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go (1)

141-143: LGTM! Simplified code by removing unnecessary variable.

The removal of the membersRoots variable simplifies the code and maintains the logic of the function.

However, ensure that the method's functionality remains intact by verifying its usage in the codebase.

Verification successful

LGTM! Simplified code by removing unnecessary variable.

The removal of the membersRoots variable simplifies the code and maintains the logic of the function. The verification confirms that the method's functionality remains intact.

  • mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go: The method BuildBlockBodyProof is used and its functionality remains consistent.
  • mod/da/pkg/blob/factory_metrics.go: The duration measurement of BuildBlockBodyProof is unaffected by the change.
Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of `BuildBlockBodyProof` method to ensure its functionality remains intact.

# Test: Search for the method usage. Expect: No breaking changes.
rg --type go -A 5 $'BuildBlockBodyProof'

Length of output: 1600

mod/consensus-types/pkg/types/body.go (1)

301-302: Potential bug fix: Added common.Root{} to the return value.

The addition of common.Root{} to the return value suggests a potential correction or enhancement to the method's functionality. Ensure that this change does not introduce any bugs.

However, verify the usage of this method in the codebase to ensure its functionality remains intact.

Verification successful

Let's verify the context around the usage of GetTopLevelRoots in mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go to ensure the change does not introduce any issues.


Potential bug fix: Added common.Root{} to the return value.

The addition of common.Root{} to the return value of GetTopLevelRoots appears to be a correction or enhancement. The method is covered by tests, and its usage in factory.go includes error handling, ensuring that any issues would be caught. Therefore, the change does not introduce any immediate issues.

  • No further action required.
Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of `GetTopLevelRoots` method to ensure its functionality remains intact.

# Test: Search for the method usage. Expect: No breaking changes.
rg --type go -A 5 $'GetTopLevelRoots'

Length of output: 1715


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Examine the context around the usage of `GetTopLevelRoots` in `mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go`.

# Display 10 lines before and after the usage of `GetTopLevelRoots` in `mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go`.
rg --type go -A 10 -B 10 $'GetTopLevelRoots' mod/da/pkg/blob/factory.go

Length of output: 630

@itsdevbear itsdevbear merged commit f6f3f66 into main Jul 31, 2024
18 checks passed
@itsdevbear itsdevbear deleted the fix-blob-bjug branch July 31, 2024 20:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant