feat: integrate wallet contract #2345
Conversation
…_given_by_identities` (#2309) Co-authored-by: Ivan Shumkov <ivan@shumkov.ru>
…entity-transfers-in-strategy-tests
…eat/add-wallet-contract
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily involve the addition of a new package, Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 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: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (17)
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/v1.rs (1)
10-10: Document version selection rationale.Consider adding a comment explaining why version 1 was chosen for the initial wallet contract implementation. This helps track the contract's evolution and future upgrade decisions.
+ // Initial version of the wallet contract implementation wallet: 1,packages/wallet-contract/src/error.rs (2)
5-14: Enhance error message and documentation for better debugging.While the implementation is solid, consider these improvements:
- Include known_versions in the error message to help users identify valid versions
- Enhance documentation comments to better describe each field's purpose
Consider this improvement:
/// Platform expected some specific versions - #[error("platform unknown version on {method}, received: {received}")] + #[error("platform unknown version on {method}, received: {received}, expected one of: {known_versions:?}")] UnknownVersionMismatch { - /// method + /// The name of the method where version mismatch occurred method: String, - /// the allowed versions for this method + /// List of feature versions that are supported by this method known_versions: Vec<FeatureVersion>, - /// requested core height + /// The feature version that was actually received received: FeatureVersion, },
1-17: Consider platform-wide error handling consistency.As this is part of a new wallet contract feature, ensure that:
- Error variants align with platform-wide error handling patterns
- Error propagation paths are well-defined across contract boundaries
- Error messages are consistent with platform logging standards
Consider documenting error handling patterns in the contract's technical documentation to guide future implementations.
packages/wallet-contract/test/bootstrap.js (1)
14-28: LGTM! Consider adding JSDoc commentsThe Mocha hooks are well-structured with proper Sinon sandbox management. The direct assignment of
loadWasmDpptobeforeAllis correct (confirmed by previous learnings).Consider adding JSDoc comments to explain the purpose of each hook:
exports.mochaHooks = { + /** + * Load WebAssembly DPP before all tests + */ beforeAll: loadWasmDpp, + /** + * Create/restore Sinon sandbox before each test + */ beforeEach() { // ... existing code ... }, + /** + * Clean up Sinon sandbox after each test + */ afterEach() { // ... existing code ... }, };packages/wallet-contract/src/v1/mod.rs (1)
4-14: Add documentation for public itemsThe module structure is clean, but public items should be documented to improve API understanding. Consider adding doc comments explaining:
- Purpose of the tx_metadata module
- Significance of each constant
- Expected format/constraints for the metadata values
Example documentation:
pub mod document_types { + /// Module handling transaction metadata document types pub mod tx_metadata { + /// Name identifier for transaction metadata documents pub const NAME: &str = "tx_metadata"; pub mod properties { + /// Index of the key used for transaction signing pub const KEY_INDEX: &str = "keyIndex";packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json (2)
47-54: Consider adding $updatedAt for data integrity.The schema constraints are well-defined with required fields and no additional properties allowed. Consider adding
$updatedAtto the required fields list for better data integrity and audit capabilities."required": [ "keyIndex", "encryptionKeyIndex", "encryptedMetadata", - "$createdAt" + "$createdAt", + "$updatedAt" ],
1-55: Document encryption mechanism and key derivation process.While the schema structure is solid, consider enhancing the documentation:
- Add a schema-level description explaining:
- The purpose and lifecycle of txMetadata
- The relationship between keyIndex and encryptionKeyIndex
- The encryption/decryption process and key derivation
- Document security considerations and constraints
This documentation will be crucial for maintainers and security reviews.
{ "txMetadata": { "type": "object", + "description": "Stores encrypted transaction metadata. The encryption key is derived using a two-factor derivation process: keyIndex selects the owner's identity public key, and encryptionKeyIndex provides additional entropy for key derivation.", "indices": [packages/wallet-contract/src/lib.rs (3)
9-12: Add documentation for ID_BYTES constant.Please add documentation explaining the significance of these specific bytes and how they were generated.
18-27: Document why load_definitions returns None for v1.The function returns
Nonefor version 1, which seems unusual. Please add documentation explaining:
- Why no definitions are needed for v1
- When definitions might be needed in future versions
28-37: Consider extracting version checking into a helper function.Both functions share similar version checking logic. Consider extracting this into a helper function to improve maintainability and reduce code duplication.
+fn check_version(version: u32, method: &str) -> Result<(), Error> { + match version { + 1 => Ok(()), + version => Err(Error::UnknownVersionMismatch { + method: method.to_string(), + known_versions: vec![1], + received: version, + }) + } +} pub fn load_documents_schemas(platform_version: &PlatformVersion) -> Result<Value, Error> { - match platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals { - 1 => v1::load_documents_schemas(), - version => Err(Error::UnknownVersionMismatch { - method: "wallet_contract::load_documents_schemas".to_string(), - known_versions: vec![1], - received: version, - }), - } + check_version( + platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals, + "wallet_contract::load_documents_schemas" + )?; + v1::load_documents_schemas() }packages/wallet-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js (4)
1-27: LGTM! Consider enhancing error handling in the helper function.The imports and helper function are well-structured. However, the helper function could be more robust.
Consider adding type checking and handling edge cases:
const expectJsonSchemaError = (validationResult, errorCount = 1) => { + if (!validationResult || typeof validationResult.getErrors !== 'function') { + throw new Error('Invalid validation result object'); + } const errors = validationResult.getErrors(); expect(errors) .to .have .length(errorCount); + if (errors.length === 0) { + throw new Error('No validation errors found'); + } const error = validationResult.getErrors()[0]; expect(error) .to .be .instanceof(JsonSchemaError); return error; };
28-42: Consider making the contract version configurable.The setup is clean, but the hardcoded
BigInt(1)for version could be more flexible.Consider extracting it to a constant or configuration:
+const CONTRACT_VERSION = BigInt(1); + describe('Wallet Contract', () => { let dpp; let dataContract; let identityId; beforeEach(async () => { dpp = new DashPlatformProtocol( { generate: () => crypto.randomBytes(32) }, ); identityId = await generateRandomIdentifier(); - dataContract = dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, BigInt(1), walletContractDocumentsSchema); + dataContract = dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, CONTRACT_VERSION, walletContractDocumentsSchema); });
64-64: Replace delete operator with undefined assignment.Using the delete operator can impact performance as flagged by static analysis.
Replace delete operations with undefined assignments:
-delete rawTxMetadataDocument.keyIndex; +rawTxMetadataDocument.keyIndex = undefined; -delete rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptionKeyIndex; +rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptionKeyIndex = undefined; -delete rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata; +rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata = undefined;Also applies to: 81-81, 98-98
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
112-140: Extract magic numbers into named constants.The byte limits are hardcoded in the tests. Consider extracting them into named constants for better maintainability.
Add constants at the top of the file:
+const MIN_ENCRYPTED_METADATA_BYTES = 32; +const MAX_ENCRYPTED_METADATA_BYTES = 4096; + describe('encryptedMetadata', () => { it('should be not shorter than 32 bytes', async () => { - rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata = crypto.randomBytes(31); + rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata = crypto.randomBytes(MIN_ENCRYPTED_METADATA_BYTES - 1); // ... }); it('should be not longer than 4096 bytes', async () => { - rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata = crypto.randomBytes(4097); + rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata = crypto.randomBytes(MAX_ENCRYPTED_METADATA_BYTES + 1); // ... }); });packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs (3)
69-82: Update method documentation.The documentation comment appears to be copied from
transition_to_version_4. Please update it to accurately describe the wallet contract initialization.-/// Initializes an empty sum tree for withdrawal transactions required for protocol version 4. +/// Initializes the wallet system data contract required for protocol version 6. /// -/// This function is called during the transition to protocol version 4 to set up -/// an empty sum tree at the specified path if it does not already exist. +/// This function is called during the transition to protocol version 6 to set up +/// the wallet contract in the system.
83-89: Consider removing unused platform state parameter.The
_platform_stateparameter is not used in the method. Consider removing it if it's not needed for consistency with the trait implementation.
90-100: Add error handling and logging for contract initialization.Consider adding error context and logging for better debugging in case of contract initialization failures.
// We are adding the withdrawal transactions sum amount tree let contract = load_system_data_contract(SystemDataContract::Wallet, platform_version)?; + +tracing::info!( + protocol_version = platform_version.protocol_version, + "Initializing wallet system data contract" +); self.drive.insert_contract( &contract, block_info.clone(), true, Some(transaction), platform_version, ).map_err(|e| { + tracing::error!( + error = ?e, + "Failed to initialize wallet system data contract" + ); + e })?;
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (21)
Cargo.toml(2 hunks)packages/data-contracts/Cargo.toml(1 hunks)packages/data-contracts/src/error.rs(1 hunks)packages/data-contracts/src/lib.rs(3 hunks)packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs(2 hunks)packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/mod.rs(1 hunks)packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/v1.rs(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/.eslintrc(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/.mocharc.yml(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/Cargo.toml(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/LICENSE(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/README.md(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/lib/systemIds.js(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/package.json(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/src/error.rs(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/src/lib.rs(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/src/v1/mod.rs(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/test/.eslintrc(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/test/bootstrap.js(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (7)
- packages/wallet-contract/.eslintrc
- packages/wallet-contract/.mocharc.yml
- packages/wallet-contract/Cargo.toml
- packages/wallet-contract/LICENSE
- packages/wallet-contract/lib/systemIds.js
- packages/wallet-contract/package.json
- packages/wallet-contract/test/.eslintrc
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
packages/wallet-contract/test/bootstrap.js (1)
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2314
File: packages/wallet-contract/test/bootstrap.js:14-16
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T14:56:12.333Z
Learning: In `packages/wallet-contract/test/bootstrap.js`, for Mocha tests in Node.js, async functions like `loadWasmDpp` can be assigned directly to `beforeAll` without wrapping them in another async function.
🪛 LanguageTool
packages/wallet-contract/README.md
[style] ~28-~28: The phrase ‘feel free to’ is used quite frequently. Consider using a less frequent alternative to set your writing apart from others and make it sound more professional.
Context: ... sh # TODO ... ## Contributing Feel free to dive in! [Open an issue](https://github...
(FEEL_FREE_TO_STYLE_ME)
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
packages/wallet-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 81-81: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 98-98: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
🔇 Additional comments (25)
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/v1.rs (1)
10-10: LGTM! Verify version validation logic.
The addition of wallet: 1 follows the established pattern for system data contract versioning.
Let's verify the version validation logic:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try another search to find version validation logic specifically related to SystemDataContractVersions:
Let me try one more search with a broader pattern to find any validation-related code for system data contract versions:
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
LGTM! Version 1 is appropriate for initial wallet contract release.
The addition of wallet: 1 follows the established pattern in the SystemDataContractVersions structure where all other system data contracts (withdrawals, dpns, dashpay, masternode_reward_shares, feature_flags) also use version 1 for their initial release. This is consistent with the versioning approach used across the platform.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for version validation code that needs to be updated
# Expected: Find version validation logic that might need updates for the new wallet field
# Search for version validation patterns
rg -A 5 "SystemDataContractVersions.*validate|verify"
# Look for version-related tests that might need updates
ast-grep --pattern 'fn $_(test|verify|validate)$_($$$) {
$$$
SystemDataContractVersions
$$$
}'
Length of output: 108764
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for SystemDataContractVersions usage in validation/verification code
rg -A 5 "SystemDataContractVersions.*validate|SystemDataContractVersions.*verify|validate.*SystemDataContractVersions|verify.*SystemDataContractVersions"
# Look for tests related to SystemDataContractVersions validation
ast-grep --pattern 'fn $_($$$) {
$$$
SystemDataContractVersions
$_validate$_
$$$
}'
Length of output: 249
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any code that references SystemDataContractVersions
rg -A 10 "SystemDataContractVersions"
# Look for any validation/verification related code in the same file
fd "v1.rs" -x rg -A 5 "validate|verify|check" {}
Length of output: 15090
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/mod.rs (2)
12-12: LGTM! Field addition follows consistent pattern
The new wallet field follows the established pattern of other feature versions in the struct, maintaining consistency in both naming and type usage.
12-12: Verify handling of breaking change
Adding a new field to SystemDataContractVersions could impact existing code. Let's verify the impact:
✅ Verification successful
Breaking change impact is minimal and safely handled
The struct SystemDataContractVersions has #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] but is not marked with Serde traits, indicating it's not used for serialization/deserialization. The struct is only used internally:
- As a field in
ProtocolVersionstruct - Has a single constant instance
SYSTEM_DATA_CONTRACT_VERSIONS_V1 - Implements
Defaulttrait which will automatically handle the new field
Adding the new wallet field is safe as:
- No serialization/deserialization is involved
- The only usage is through a constant that will be updated
- Default trait implementation will handle other cases
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for struct usage and potential serialization impacts
# Check for struct instantiations and pattern matching
rg -A 3 "SystemDataContractVersions\s*{\s*"
# Check for potential serialization/deserialization usage
rg -l "(serde|Serialize|Deserialize).+SystemDataContractVersions"
# Look for tests that might need updates
fd -e rs | xargs rg "test.+SystemDataContractVersions"
Length of output: 314
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for struct usage with fixed regex
rg -A 3 "SystemDataContractVersions\s*\{"
# Check struct definition and its attributes
rg -B 2 "struct SystemDataContractVersions"
# Check for serialization traits
rg "#\[derive.*Serialize.*\]" -A 2 packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/mod.rs
# Look for direct usages
rg "SystemDataContractVersions" -A 2
Length of output: 3059
packages/wallet-contract/src/error.rs (3)
1-2: LGTM!
The import is clean and appropriately scoped for the version-related functionality.
3-4: Well-structured error type declaration!
Good use of thiserror for deriving common error implementations, which reduces boilerplate and follows Rust best practices.
15-16: Verify JSON schema validation handling.
The error variant correctly wraps serde_json errors, but let's verify the schema validation flow.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the schema validation by checking the schema files and test coverage.
Schema validation error handling is properly implemented
The InvalidSchemaJson error variant is correctly used across the codebase:
- It's consistently used to handle JSON schema parsing errors in all contract modules
- The error is properly propagated through the data-contracts module
- Each contract module follows the same pattern of using
map_err(Error::InvalidSchemaJson)when loading schemas - The
#[from]derivation ensures proper error conversion fromserde_json::Error
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for JSON schema validation code and potential edge cases
# Look for schema loading and validation code
rg -A 5 "load.*schema" --type rust
# Check for schema-related test files
fd -e rs test.*schema
Length of output: 10608
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check schema files content and test coverage
# Find all JSON schema files
fd -e json schema
# Look for schema validation tests
rg -A 5 "test.*schema.*validation|test.*invalid.*schema" --type rust
# Look for actual usage of InvalidSchemaJson error
rg "InvalidSchemaJson" --type rust
Length of output: 2355
packages/wallet-contract/test/bootstrap.js (3)
11-12: LGTM! Chai plugins are properly configured
The Chai plugins are set up correctly, following best practices for plugin initialization order.
30-30: Verify ESLint configuration for global expect
Making expect global is a common pattern, but ensure your ESLint configuration allows this usage.
✅ Verification successful
Global expect usage is consistent across the project
The codebase shows a consistent pattern of using global.expect in test bootstrap files across multiple packages, all following the same testing setup pattern. All packages use ESLint with eslint-config-airbnb-base, which by default allows commonly used test globals. This is a well-established testing pattern in the project.
- Found in 18 different test bootstrap files across various packages
- Consistent ESLint configuration across all packages using
eslint-config-airbnb-base
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check ESLint configuration for global variables
# Look for ESLint configuration files
fd -e json -e js -e yml -e yaml '\.eslintrc' --exec sh -c '
echo "Checking {}"
cat {} | grep -A 5 "globals"
'
Length of output: 115
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search for ESLint configurations
# First, check for any ESLint config files
fd -e json -e js -e yml -e yaml '\.eslintrc'
# Then, let's also check package.json for ESLint configs
fd 'package.json' --exec sh -c 'echo "=== {} ==="; cat {} | grep -A 10 "eslint"'
# Additionally, let's check if expect is used globally in other test files
rg "global.expect" -A 2
Length of output: 13886
7-9: Verify wasm-dpp package version and documentation
The WebAssembly DPP module is imported correctly, but we should ensure we're using the latest compatible version and that its usage is documented.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the wasm-dpp package and its versioning.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
WebAssembly DPP module is properly configured and documented
The package @dashevo/wasm-dpp is:
- Using workspace versioning (
workspace:*) which is appropriate for a monorepo setup - Well documented in its README.md with clear build instructions and prerequisites
- Extensively tested across the codebase with proper loading patterns
- Version 1.5.0 according to its package.json
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check wasm-dpp package version and documentation
# Check package.json for version
fd --type f "package.json" --exec sh -c '
echo "Checking {}"
cat {} | jq -r ".dependencies[\"@dashevo/wasm-dpp\"] // .devDependencies[\"@dashevo/wasm-dpp\"]"
'
# Look for documentation about wasm-dpp usage
rg -l "wasm-dpp" --type md
Length of output: 1292
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of wasm-dpp package.json and README
echo "=== wasm-dpp package.json ==="
cat packages/wasm-dpp/package.json
echo -e "\n=== wasm-dpp README.md ==="
cat packages/wasm-dpp/README.md
echo -e "\n=== Checking usage patterns ==="
# Look for loadWasmDpp usage patterns
rg "loadWasmDpp" -A 2
Length of output: 71407
packages/wallet-contract/src/v1/mod.rs (3)
8-12: Review security implications of metadata handling
The constants suggest handling of encryption keys and metadata. Please ensure:
- The
keyIndexandencryptionKeyIndexare properly validated - The
encryptedMetadatafollows secure encryption practices - Key indices are protected against unauthorized access
✅ Verification successful
Based on the extensive code analysis, I can now provide a final response:
Security implementation for encryption keys and metadata is robust
The codebase shows comprehensive security measures:
- Key validation is enforced through
StorageKeyRequirementswith unique/multiple reference constraints - Encryption keys are properly bounded to contracts and document types
- The system validates key changes and prevents unauthorized modifications
- Encrypted metadata handling follows secure practices with proper key management
The implementation includes:
- Contract-level encryption key requirements validation
- Document-type specific encryption controls
- Identity-based key access restrictions
- Proper key storage and reference management
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for key validation and encryption handling
# Look for key validation logic
rg -A 5 "keyIndex|encryptionKeyIndex" --type rust
# Check for encryption-related tests
rg -l "encryptedMetadata.*test" --type rust
Length of output: 584
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's perform a more comprehensive security analysis
# Check for validation logic and usage of these constants
ast-grep --pattern 'fn $FUNC($$$) {
$$$
$KEY_INDEX
$$$
}'
# Look for encryption-related implementations
rg -B 2 -A 5 "encrypt" --type rust
# Check for test files
fd "test.*\.rs$"
Length of output: 77481
1-2: Verify error handling implementation
The imports look good, but let's verify the Error type implementation for proper error handling.
✅ Verification successful
Error handling implementation is properly defined and used
The error handling implementation is correctly defined and used in the wallet contract:
Errorenum properly definesInvalidSchemaJsonvariant that wrapsserde_json::Error- The error is correctly used in
load_documents_schemas()function for JSON schema parsing - The implementation follows Rust's error handling best practices with proper error propagation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify Error type implementation and its InvalidSchemaJson variant
# Check Error type implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'enum Error {
$$$
InvalidSchemaJson($_)
$$$
}'
# Check for error handling tests
rg -l "InvalidSchemaJson" --type rust | grep "_test"
Length of output: 124
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for Error type definition and its usage
# Search for Error type definition
rg "enum Error" -A 10 --type rust
# Search for any error handling related to schema
rg "InvalidSchema|SchemaError" --type rust
# Check the crate's error module
fd "error.rs|errors.rs" --type f
Length of output: 55677
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the specific error implementation in wallet-contract and its usage
# Check the Error enum implementation in wallet-contract
rg -A 5 "pub enum Error" packages/wallet-contract/src/error.rs
# Check how InvalidSchemaJson is used in the codebase
rg "InvalidSchemaJson" -B 2 -A 2 packages/wallet-contract/src/
Length of output: 948
16-19: Consider adding schema validation safeguards
While the implementation is functional, consider these improvements:
- Add compile-time schema validation
- Implement schema version validation
- Make the schema path configurable
Consider this approach:
use serde::{Deserialize, Serialize};
#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize)]
struct DocumentSchema {
version: String,
// Add expected schema structure
}
pub fn load_documents_schemas() -> Result<Value, Error> {
let schema_str = include_str!("../../schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json");
// Validate schema structure
let _validated: DocumentSchema = serde_json::from_str(schema_str)
.map_err(Error::InvalidSchemaJson)?;
// Return as Value for flexibility
serde_json::from_str(schema_str).map_err(Error::InvalidSchemaJson)
}packages/data-contracts/Cargo.toml (2)
19-19: LGTM! The dependency addition follows the established pattern.
The new wallet-contract dependency follows the same local path dependency pattern used by other contract dependencies in this package.
19-19: Verify the wallet contract package setup.
Let's ensure the wallet contract package exists and maintains consistent versioning with other contracts.
✅ Verification successful
The wallet-contract package exists and is properly configured
The wallet-contract package exists at packages/wallet-contract and is correctly included in the workspace members list in the root Cargo.toml. The dependency declaration in packages/data-contracts/Cargo.toml using a relative path is valid.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify wallet contract package setup and version consistency
# Check if wallet-contract package exists and has proper version
echo "Checking wallet-contract package..."
if [ -f "../wallet-contract/Cargo.toml" ]; then
echo "wallet-contract/Cargo.toml exists"
# Extract and display version
rg '^version = ' ../wallet-contract/Cargo.toml
else
echo "Error: wallet-contract/Cargo.toml not found"
fi
# Compare dependency versions across contract packages for consistency
echo -e "\nChecking dependency versions across contracts..."
for contract in ../*/Cargo.toml; do
echo "=== $contract ==="
# Extract common dependency versions (thiserror, serde_json)
rg '^thiserror = |^serde_json = ' "$contract" || true
done
Length of output: 489
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify if the wallet-contract directory exists and check the repository structure
echo "Checking repository structure..."
fd --type d --max-depth 2
# Check if there are any references to wallet-contract in other Cargo.toml files
echo -e "\nChecking references to wallet-contract..."
rg -l "wallet-contract" --type toml
# Look for any potential workspace configuration
echo -e "\nChecking for workspace configuration..."
fd Cargo.toml --max-depth 1
if [ -f "Cargo.toml" ]; then
echo "Root Cargo.toml contents:"
cat Cargo.toml
fi
Length of output: 2940
Cargo.toml (1)
31-31: LGTM! New wallet contract package added to workspace.
The addition of "packages/wallet-contract" to the workspace members is consistent with the project structure and aligns with the PR objective of implementing a wallet contract feature.
Let's verify the package structure is properly set up:
✅ Verification successful
Package structure verified and properly set up
The wallet contract package has all the essential components in place:
- Directory structure at
packages/wallet-contract/ - Package manifest at
packages/wallet-contract/Cargo.toml - Main library file at
packages/wallet-contract/src/lib.rs - Versioned module structure with
packages/wallet-contract/src/v1/mod.rs
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the wallet contract package structure
# Check if the package directory exists and contains required files
fd -t d "^wallet-contract$" packages/
fd -t f "^Cargo.toml$" packages/wallet-contract/
# Check for essential Rust source files
fd -t f "^lib.rs$|^mod.rs$" packages/wallet-contract/src/
Length of output: 287
packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json (2)
25-46: Verify encryption parameters and key index bounds.
While the property definitions are generally good, there are some security considerations:
- The
encryptedMetadatasize constraints:- Minimum size (32 bytes) matches AES-CBC-256 block size
- Maximum size (4096 bytes) needs verification against system constraints
- Consider adding maximum bounds for
keyIndexandencryptionKeyIndex
Let's verify the encryption parameters and constraints:
✅ Verification successful
Let's broaden our search to find relevant encryption and key handling implementations that can help verify the constraints.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response:
Encryption parameters and key index constraints are appropriately defined
The verification shows that:
-
The
encryptedMetadatasize constraints are well-justified:- Minimum size of 32 bytes is validated in tests and matches AES-CBC block size
- Maximum size of 4096 bytes is validated in tests and is a reasonable limit for metadata storage
-
Regarding key indices:
- The minimum bound of 0 is appropriate as shown by the key derivation implementation in
getIdentityHDKeyByIndex - No maximum bound is needed as the indices are used in a hierarchical deterministic key derivation path that can safely handle large values
- The minimum bound of 0 is appropriate as shown by the key derivation implementation in
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for encryption implementation details
rg -A 10 "AES-CBC-256|encrypt.*Metadata" --type ts --type js --type rs
# Search for key derivation logic to verify index bounds
ast-grep --pattern 'fn $_(key_index: $_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 153
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for encryption-related code with broader patterns
rg -A 10 "encrypt" --type ts --type js
# Search for key-related code
rg -A 10 "keyIndex|encryptionKeyIndex" --type ts --type js
# Find all files that might contain encryption implementation
fd -e ts -e js | grep -i "encrypt"
# Look for test files that might reveal constraints
fd -e ts -e js | grep -i "test" | xargs rg "encryptedMetadata|keyIndex"
Length of output: 49107
4-24: LGTM! Verify index usage patterns.
The index structure is well-designed with both single and compound indices supporting owner-based queries and chronological listing. The compound index ownerIdAndCreatedAt efficiently supports both single-key and compound queries.
Let's verify the index usage patterns in the codebase:
packages/wallet-contract/src/lib.rs (2)
1-8: LGTM! Clean module organization and imports.
The module structure and imports are well-organized, with appropriate re-exports for error handling.
14-17:
Review security implications of zero OWNER_ID.
Using an all-zero identifier for OWNER_ID could pose security risks:
- It might be predictable or clash with default/null values
- Could lead to unauthorized access if not properly validated
Consider using a more secure, unique identifier.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about how these zero-initialized identifiers are used in the contracts.
Let me check one more aspect to understand if these zero IDs are meant to be replaced during contract initialization.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
Zero OWNER_ID is intentionally used for system contracts initialization
The zero-initialized OWNER_ID is a deliberate design choice for system data contracts (wallet, withdrawals, dpns, feature-flags, etc.) where:
- These are system contracts that are initialized during platform setup
- The contracts' load_definitions() functions show this is part of the versioning system
- Security checks exist in the codebase (e.g., in feature_flags triggers) to validate operations against these known OWNER_IDs
No security implications were found as:
- The zero ID serves as a marker for system contracts
- Validation logic exists to enforce proper access control
- This pattern is consistently used across all system contracts
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other zero-initialized identifiers to understand if this is a pattern
rg -l '\[0; 32\]' --type rust
# Search for OWNER_ID usage to understand the security implications
ast-grep --pattern 'OWNER_ID'
Length of output: 5509
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the context around OWNER_ID usage in contracts
rg -B 5 -A 5 "OWNER_ID_BYTES: \[u8; 32\] = \[0; 32\]" --type rust
# Check if there are any validation or security checks around OWNER_ID
rg -B 3 -A 3 "validate.*OWNER_ID|check.*OWNER_ID" --type rust
# Look for initialization or setup functions that might set these IDs
ast-grep --pattern 'fn $_($$) {
$$$
OWNER_ID
$$$
}'
Length of output: 5733
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for contract initialization or setup code
rg -B 5 -A 10 "load_definitions|initialize|setup" packages/*/src/lib.rs
# Check if there are any tests related to OWNER_ID
rg -l "OWNER_ID.*test" --type rust
# Look for documentation about these contracts
fd README.md packages/ --exec cat {}
Length of output: 103098
packages/data-contracts/src/error.rs (1)
106-121: LGTM! Verify completeness of error mapping.
The implementation correctly follows the established pattern for error conversion and properly maps the known error variants.
Let's verify that all variants of wallet_contract::Error are handled:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to find the Error enum definition in the wallet contract.
Let me try one more search strategy to locate the wallet contract error definition.
Let me get the complete definition of the wallet contract error enum.
Error mapping implementation is complete and correct
The From<wallet_contract::Error> implementation correctly handles all variants of the wallet contract's Error enum:
UnknownVersionMismatchwith all its fields (method, known_versions, received)InvalidSchemaJsonwith its wrapped serde_json::Error
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if all wallet_contract::Error variants are mapped in the From implementation
# Search for Error enum definition in wallet-contract
ast-grep --pattern 'enum Error {
$$$
}'
# Compare with the variants handled in the From implementation
rg -A 10 'impl From<wallet_contract::Error>'
Length of output: 884
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for wallet contract error enum definition
fd wallet_contract --type f --exec rg -A 10 'pub enum Error'
Length of output: 62
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for files containing wallet contract and error definitions
rg -g '!target' -g '!*.lock' -A 5 'pub mod wallet_contract|pub enum Error'
Length of output: 6812
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the complete Error enum definition from wallet contract
rg -A 15 'pub enum Error' packages/wallet-contract/src/error.rs
Length of output: 545
packages/data-contracts/src/lib.rs (2)
22-22: Verify enum variant value stability
The new Wallet variant is correctly added with value 5. However, since enum values are likely used in serialization, we should verify this value hasn't been used before in previous versions to maintain backward compatibility.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the usage of value 5 in the enum.
Enum variant value is correctly assigned
The value 5 for the Wallet variant follows the sequential ordering (0 through 5) of the SystemDataContract enum, and there's no evidence of value 5 being previously used for a different variant. The enum maintains proper serialization compatibility.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for any previous usage of value 5 in SystemDataContract enum
# across git history to ensure we're not reusing a previously used value
rg -l "SystemDataContract" | xargs git grep -l "= 5"
Length of output: 87
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content around the enum definition with context
rg -B 5 -A 5 "= 5" packages/data-contracts/src/lib.rs
# Also check git history for this specific file to see if value 5 was used differently before
git log -p packages/data-contracts/src/lib.rs | rg -B 3 -A 3 "= 5,"
Length of output: 269
87-93: Verify platform version compatibility
The implementation looks correct and follows the established pattern. However, we need to verify:
- The
walletfield exists inplatform_version.system_data_contracts - The required wallet_contract module functions are implemented
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information to verify the existence of the wallet field in platform_version.system_data_contracts and the required functions.
Let me check one more thing to verify the existence of the wallet field in SystemDataContractVersions:
All required components for wallet contract are properly implemented
The verification confirms:
- The
walletfield exists inplatform_version.system_data_contractsas aFeatureVersion - The wallet_contract module has all required components:
ID_BYTESandOWNER_ID_BYTESconstantsload_definitions(platform_version)functionload_documents_schemas(platform_version)function
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the wallet contract implementation completeness
# Check if wallet field exists in PlatformVersion
rg -A 10 "struct.*SystemDataContracts"
# Verify required wallet_contract functions exist
ast-grep --pattern 'pub const ID_BYTES: [u8; 32]'
ast-grep --pattern 'pub const OWNER_ID_BYTES: [u8; 32]'
ast-grep --pattern 'pub fn load_definitions'
ast-grep --pattern 'pub fn load_documents_schemas'
Length of output: 4280
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for wallet field in platform version related structs
rg -A 10 "struct.*PlatformVersion"
# Search for load_definitions and load_documents_schemas functions in wallet contract
rg -p "fn load_definitions|fn load_documents_schemas" packages/wallet-contract/
Length of output: 5248
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for SystemDataContractVersions struct definition
rg -A 10 "struct.*SystemDataContractVersions"
Length of output: 934
packages/wallet-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js (1)
1-171: Overall test implementation looks good!
The test suite provides thorough coverage of the wallet contract's document validation, including both successful and error scenarios. The structure is clean and follows testing best practices.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 81-81: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 98-98: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs (2)
7-8: LGTM: Required imports added for wallet contract integration.
The new imports are correctly added to support the system data contract functionality.
57-67: LGTM: Protocol version 6 transition logic properly integrated.
The version 6 transition logic follows the same pattern as version 4, with correct version checks.
Let's verify there are no other protocol version transitions we might have missed:
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for any transition-related functions to ensure we haven't missed any version transitions.
Let me try a different approach to find transition methods.
Protocol version transitions are correctly implemented
Based on the verification results, there are only two protocol version transitions implemented in the codebase:
- Version 4 transition (
transition_to_version_4) - Version 6 transition (
transition_to_version_6)
The new version 6 transition follows the same pattern as the existing version 4 transition, and there are no missing version transitions in between. The implementation is consistent with the codebase's protocol upgrade handling pattern.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other protocol version transitions in the codebase
rg -A 2 "protocol_version [<>=]+ \d+" --type rust
Length of output: 2878
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for transition-related functions in the codebase
ast-grep --pattern 'fn transition_to_version_$_'
Length of output: 50
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for transition methods using ripgrep
rg "fn transition_to_version" --type rust -A 3
Length of output: 1322
.../platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.../platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
packages/wallet-contract/README.md (2)
23-23: Consider more professional wording for the contributing sectionThe current phrasing could be more professional while maintaining its welcoming tone.
Consider this alternative:
-Feel free to dive in! [Open an issue](https://github.com/dashpay/platform/issues/new/choose) or submit PRs. +We welcome contributions! You can [open an issue](https://github.com/dashpay/platform/issues/new/choose) or submit pull requests.
6-6: Enhance the package descriptionThe current description is quite brief. Consider expanding it to better explain the package's purpose and features.
Consider this enhancement:
-JSON Contracts for Dash Wallet apps +JSON Contracts for Dash Wallet applications, providing standardized contract definitions and utilities for wallet integration in the Dash Platform ecosystem.packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs (1)
Line range hint
47-51: Remove unused parameterplatform_state.The
platform_stateparameter is not used in the version 6 transition but is still included in the method signature.pub(super) fn perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change_v0( &self, - platform_state: &PlatformState, block_info: &BlockInfo, transaction: &Transaction, previous_protocol_version: ProtocolVersion, platform_version: &PlatformVersion, ) -> Result<(), Error>
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs(2 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/README.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
packages/wallet-contract/README.md
[style] ~22-~22: The phrase ‘feel free to’ is used quite frequently. Consider using a less frequent alternative to set your writing apart from others and make it sound more professional.
Context: ...o/wallet-contract ``` ## Contributing Feel free to dive in! [Open an issue](https://github...
(FEEL_FREE_TO_STYLE_ME)
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
packages/wallet-contract/README.md
11-11: null
Link fragments should be valid
(MD051, link-fragments)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs (3)
7-8: LGTM!
The new imports are properly organized and necessary for the wallet contract integration.
57-62: LGTM!
The version check logic for protocol version 6 follows the same pattern as version 4 and is implemented correctly.
64-84: LGTM! Verify contract initialization.
The implementation correctly loads and initializes the wallet contract. The documentation is clear and the error handling is appropriate.
Let's verify the contract initialization:
✅ Verification successful
Wallet contract initialization implementation is correct and consistent
The verification confirms:
- Wallet contract is properly defined in the system contracts with correct ID and owner bytes
- Contract initialization follows the standard pattern using
load_system_data_contract - The implementation is the only place initializing the wallet contract, which is appropriate for a protocol upgrade
- Contract versioning is correctly tied to platform version through
platform_version.system_data_contracts.wallet
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify wallet contract initialization and uniqueness
# Check if wallet contract is defined in system contracts
ast-grep --pattern 'enum SystemDataContract {
$$$
Wallet,
$$$
}'
# Check for any existing wallet contract implementations
rg -l "SystemDataContract::Wallet"
Length of output: 271
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the wallet contract implementation details
# Check the wallet contract definition and usage
rg -A 10 "SystemDataContract::Wallet" packages/data-contracts/src/lib.rs
# Check if there are any other places where wallet contract is initialized
ast-grep --pattern 'load_system_data_contract(SystemDataContract::Wallet, $_)'
# Check for any other contract initialization patterns to ensure consistency
ast-grep --pattern 'insert_contract(
$_,
$_,
true,
Some($_),
$_
)'
Length of output: 1516
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/wallet-contract/src/lib.rs (2)
9-17: Add documentation for the contract identifiers.Please add documentation comments explaining:
- The significance of these identifiers
- How ID_BYTES was generated/calculated
- Why OWNER_ID_BYTES is zero-filled
- The relationship between these identifiers
18-37: Improve version handling and add documentation.
- The version checking logic is duplicated between functions. Consider extracting it into a helper function.
- Please add documentation comments explaining:
- The purpose of each function
- Why load_definitions returns None for version 1
- The expected schema structure from load_documents_schemas
Consider refactoring to:
+ /// Helper function to verify supported version + fn verify_version(version: u32, method: &str) -> Result<(), Error> { + match version { + 1 => Ok(()), + version => Err(Error::UnknownVersionMismatch { + method: method.to_string(), + known_versions: vec![1], + received: version, + }) + } + } + + /// Documentation explaining the purpose and behavior pub fn load_definitions(platform_version: &PlatformVersion) -> Result<Option<Value>, Error> { - match platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals { - 1 => Ok(None), - version => Err(Error::UnknownVersionMismatch { - method: "wallet_contract::load_definitions".to_string(), - known_versions: vec![1], - received: version, - }), - } + verify_version(platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals, + "wallet_contract::load_definitions")?; + Ok(None) } + /// Documentation explaining the purpose and schema structure pub fn load_documents_schemas(platform_version: &PlatformVersion) -> Result<Value, Error> { - match platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals { - 1 => v1::load_documents_schemas(), - version => Err(Error::UnknownVersionMismatch { - method: "wallet_contract::load_documents_schemas".to_string(), - known_versions: vec![1], - received: version, - }), - } + verify_version(platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals, + "wallet_contract::load_documents_schemas")?; + v1::load_documents_schemas() }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/wallet-contract/lib/systemIds.js(1 hunks)packages/wallet-contract/src/lib.rs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
packages/wallet-contract/lib/systemIds.js (2)
2-2: Verify the special owner ID value
The owner ID uses a sequence of 32 '1' characters, which appears to be a special system address. Please verify if this is the intended system owner for the wallet contract.
Let's search for similar owner ID patterns in the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for documentation or comments about this system ID:
System contracts are designed to have no owner
Based on the changelog entry "system data contracts should not have an owner (#1992)" and the consistent pattern of using 11111111111111111111111111111111 as the owner ID across all system contracts (wallet, withdrawals, masternode-reward-shares, feature-flags, dpns, and dashpay), this appears to be an intentional design choice to indicate a "no-owner" state for system contracts.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for owner ID patterns and usage
# Expected: Find documentation or other uses of this special system address
# Search for similar owner ID patterns
echo "Searching for similar owner ID patterns..."
rg '1{32}' --type js
# Search for files containing 'ownerId' to find other owner definitions
echo "Searching for other owner ID definitions..."
rg 'ownerId.*=.*' --type js
Length of output: 8933
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for documentation about the system owner ID
echo "Searching for documentation about system owner ID..."
rg -i "system.*owner|owner.*system" --type md --type js -C 2
# Search for comments near the systemIds.js files
echo "Searching for comments in systemIds files..."
fd systemIds.js --exec cat {}
Length of output: 2705
3-3:
Potential contract ID collision with DPNS detected
Based on a previous review comment, this contract ID might be the same as the DPNS contract ID. Contract IDs must be unique across the system to prevent conflicts.
Let's verify this by searching for other contract IDs in the codebase:
packages/wallet-contract/src/lib.rs (3)
1-8: LGTM! Well-structured module organization and imports.
The module structure and imports are clean and follow Rust best practices.
14-14:
Review the zero-filled OWNER_ID_BYTES implementation.
Using an all-zero identifier in a production system could be risky. Please verify if this is intentional or if it should be replaced with a proper identifier.
19-20: Verify version compatibility with protocol version 6.
The PR aims to integrate this contract with protocol version 6, but the code only handles version 1 of withdrawals. Please verify if this is correct or if additional version support is needed.
Also applies to: 29-30
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for more specific information about withdrawals versioning.
Let me search for the protocol version 6 configuration to understand the withdrawals version setting.
Let me check the version 1 system data contract versions definition to confirm the withdrawals version setting.
Let me try one more search to find the version 1 constant definition.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Version compatibility is correct for protocol version 6
The code correctly handles version 1 of withdrawals, which is the version used in protocol version 6. This is confirmed by:
- The system data contract versions for protocol v6 uses
SYSTEM_DATA_CONTRACT_VERSIONS_V1 SYSTEM_DATA_CONTRACT_VERSIONS_V1explicitly setswithdrawals: 1- The wallet contract correctly handles version 1 in its match statement
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for protocol version references
rg -A 2 "protocol.*version|version.*protocol" --type rust
# Look for other version handling in the codebase
rg "system_data_contracts\.withdrawals" --type rust
Length of output: 102234
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for withdrawals version handling in the codebase
rg -A 5 "withdrawals.*version|version.*withdrawals" --type rust
# Look for withdrawal contract version definitions
rg -A 5 "WITHDRAWALS_CONTRACT_V\d+" --type rust
# Look for withdrawal contract version in platform version files
rg -A 5 "withdrawals.*=.*\d+" packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v6.rs
Length of output: 10622
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for system data contract versions in platform version 6
rg -B 5 -A 5 "system_data_contracts" packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v6.rs
# Look for withdrawals version definition
rg -B 2 -A 2 "struct SystemDataContractVersions" --type rust
Length of output: 1089
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for system data contract versions v1 definition
rg -B 5 -A 5 "SYSTEM_DATA_CONTRACT_VERSIONS_V1\s*=\s*" --type rust
# Also check if there are any other version definitions
rg -B 5 -A 5 "SYSTEM_DATA_CONTRACT_VERSIONS_V\d+\s*=\s*" --type rust
Length of output: 139
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for v1 module in system data contract versions
rg -A 10 "mod v1;" packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/
# Look for the constant in v1 module
find . -type f -name "v1.rs" -exec rg -A 5 "pub const SYSTEM_DATA_CONTRACT_VERSIONS_V1" {} \;
Length of output: 1563
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/wallet-contract/README.md (2)
22-22: Improve Contributing section's professionalismConsider using more professional language in the Contributing section while maintaining a welcoming tone.
-Feel free to dive in! [Open an issue](https://github.com/dashpay/platform/issues/new/choose) or submit PRs. +We welcome contributions! Please see our [contributing guidelines](../CONTRIBUTING.md) before [opening an issue](https://github.com/dashpay/platform/issues/new/choose) or submitting pull requests.
12-13: Add additional documentation sectionsConsider adding the following sections to make the documentation more comprehensive:
- Documentation: Link to detailed API documentation and examples
- Version Compatibility: Specify compatibility with Protocol Version 6 and any other requirements
## Documentation For detailed documentation and examples, visit our [documentation site](link-to-docs). ## Version Compatibility - Requires Protocol Version 6 or higher - Node.js version requirements - Any other compatibility requirements
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/wallet-contract/README.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
packages/wallet-contract/README.md
[style] ~21-~21: The phrase ‘feel free to’ is used quite frequently. Consider using a less frequent alternative to set your writing apart from others and make it sound more professional.
Context: ...o/wallet-contract ``` ## Contributing Feel free to dive in! [Open an issue](https://github...
(FEEL_FREE_TO_STYLE_ME)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/wallet-contract/README.md (1)
10-12:
Add missing Usage section
The documentation needs a Usage section to help developers understand how to implement the wallet contract, especially since this is a new protocol feature.
Add a Usage section after the Install section with implementation examples:
## Usage
```javascript
const { WalletContract } = require('@dashevo/wallet-contract');
// Initialize wallet contract
const walletContract = new WalletContract({
// Add configuration options
});
// Example usage for common operations
// Add code examples hereInclude examples for:
- Basic initialization
- Common operations
- Error handling
- Protocol version 6 specific features
</details>
</details>
</details>
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit for review status -->
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json (2)
6-26: Consider adding a creation time index.While the current indices support owner-based queries efficiently, consider adding a standalone
createdAtindex for global time-based queries, which could be useful for maintenance, auditing, or analytics purposes."indices": [ { "name": "ownerId", "properties": [ { "$ownerId": "asc" } ] }, { "name": "ownerIdAndCreatedAt", "properties": [ { "$ownerId": "asc" }, { "$createdAt": "asc" } ] }, + { + "name": "createdAt", + "properties": [ + { + "$createdAt": "asc" + } + ] + } ],
40-46: Ensure secure implementation of AES-CBC-256.Since the schema specifies AES-CBC-256 encryption:
- Ensure proper IV (Initialization Vector) handling
- Consider implementing key rotation mechanisms
- Document the encryption/decryption process
- Add integration tests for the encryption workflow
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/wallet-contract/schema/v1/wallet-contract-documents.json (3)
2-5: LGTM! Document configuration is well-defined.
The immutability setting with deletion capability is a good security practice for wallet-related documents.
49-56: LGTM! Schema constraints are well-defined.
The required fields and strict schema enforcement through additionalProperties: false provide good data integrity guarantees.
40-47: Verify the maximum size limit for encrypted metadata.
The 4096-byte limit for encryptedMetadata needs verification to ensure it's sufficient for all use cases. Consider:
- The types of metadata that will be stored
- The overhead added by encryption
- Future scalability requirements
✅ Verification successful
The previous search was too broad and didn't provide enough context about metadata usage. Let's search more specifically for metadata-related code and tests to understand the typical usage patterns and size requirements.
The previous search revealed extensive metadata handling in the codebase but didn't show the specific usage patterns of encrypted metadata. Let's search for actual implementations and documentation that might justify the 4096-byte limit.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response about the 4096-byte limit for encrypted metadata:
The 4096-byte limit for encrypted metadata appears to be well-tested and sufficient
The codebase shows that:
- The limit is actively tested with both valid (64 bytes) and invalid (4097 bytes) cases in unit tests
- The minimum size of 32 bytes is enforced for security (AES-CBC-256 block size)
- The actual usage patterns in tests demonstrate that typical encrypted metadata is much smaller (64 bytes) than the maximum limit
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for similar encrypted data size limits in the codebase
rg -i 'maxItems|max_size|max_length.*4096' --type json --type rust
# Look for existing metadata usage patterns
rg -i 'metadata.*size|size.*metadata' --type rust -A 3
Length of output: 104384
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for metadata size usage patterns in the codebase
rg -i 'metadata' --type rust -A 3 -B 3
# Look for any tests or documentation about metadata size limits
rg -i 'metadata.*test|test.*metadata' --type rust -A 3
Length of output: 101284
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for actual usage of encrypted metadata in tests or implementation
rg -i "encryptedMetadata" --type rust --type js --type ts -A 3
# Look for any documentation about metadata size requirements
fd -e md -e txt | xargs rg -i "metadata.*size|size.*metadata"
Length of output: 3545
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/error.rs (1)
4-6: Add documentation for the Error enum.Consider adding a doc comment for the Error enum itself to describe its purpose in the wallet contract context.
#[derive(thiserror::Error, Debug)] +/// Represents errors that can occur during wallet contract operations pub enum Error { /// Platform expected some specific versionspackages/wallet-utils-contract/test/bootstrap.js (1)
30-30: Consider avoiding global expect for better test isolation.While setting
expectglobally is a common pattern, it could cause issues in strict mode or parallel test execution. Consider passingexpectthrough the test context instead.-global.expect = expect; +exports.mochaHooks.beforeEach = function beforeEach() { + this.expect = expect; + // ... existing beforeEach code ... +};packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/v1/mod.rs (2)
4-14: Document security implications of metadata encryptionThe module structure is well-organized, but given it handles encrypted transaction metadata and encryption key indices, it would be valuable to:
- Document the encryption scheme being used
- Add documentation about the security model and key management
- Clarify the relationship between
keyIndexandencryptionKeyIndexConsider adding documentation comments above the module and each constant explaining their purpose and security implications. Example:
pub mod document_types { + /// Module handling encrypted transaction metadata storage + /// Security: This implementation assumes... pub mod tx_metadata { pub const NAME: &str = "tx_metadata"; pub mod properties { + /// Index for the transaction signing key pub const KEY_INDEX: &str = "keyIndex"; + /// Index for the metadata encryption key + /// Note: This is separate from the signing key to... pub const ENCRYPTION_KEY_INDEX: &str = "encryptionKeyIndex";
16-21: Consider adding type-safe schema representationInstead of returning raw
serde_json::Value, consider:
- Creating a strongly-typed struct for the schema
- Adding version validation
- Implementing schema validation at load time
Example implementation:
#[derive(Debug, Deserialize)] pub struct WalletSchema { version: String, #[serde(rename = "tx_metadata")] tx_metadata: TxMetadataSchema, } pub fn load_documents_schemas() -> Result<WalletSchema, Error> { let raw_schema = include_str!("../../schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json"); let schema: WalletSchema = serde_json::from_str(raw_schema) .map_err(Error::InvalidSchemaJson)?; // Validate version if schema.version != "1.0" { return Err(Error::InvalidSchemaVersion); } Ok(schema) }packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json (1)
6-26: Consider index optimization strategiesThe current indices support owner-based queries and time-based filtering efficiently. However, for large datasets, consider:
- Adding a TTL (Time To Live) index if old metadata should expire
- Implementing pagination support using the composite index
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js (5)
12-26: Consider enhancing the error validation helper.The
expectJsonSchemaErrorhelper could be improved for better error validation and DRY principles.Consider this enhancement:
const expectJsonSchemaError = (validationResult, errorCount = 1) => { const errors = validationResult.getErrors(); expect(errors) .to .have .length(errorCount); - const error = validationResult.getErrors()[0]; + const [error] = errors; expect(error) .to .be .instanceof(JsonSchemaError); return error; };
40-40: Document the significance of BigInt(1).The usage of
BigInt(1)as a parameter is not immediately clear. Consider adding a comment explaining its purpose in the contract creation.
43-48: Enhance the contract validation test.The current test only verifies that contract creation doesn't throw. Consider adding specific assertions about the contract's properties and structure.
Example enhancement:
it('should have a valid contract definition', async () => { - expect(() => dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, BigInt(1), walletContractDocumentsSchema)) - .to - .not - .throw(); + const contract = dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, BigInt(1), walletContractDocumentsSchema); + const validationResult = await contract.validate(dpp.protocolVersion); + expect(validationResult.isValid()).to.be.true; + expect(contract.documents).to.have.property('txMetadata'); });
87-93: Fix inconsistent indentation in expect chains.The indentation in expect chains varies throughout the file. Some use 4 spaces while others use 2 spaces.
Standardize the indentation to match the project's style guide (likely 2 spaces based on other parts of the file).
Also applies to: 104-110, 134-140
33-41: Consider adding protocol version specific tests.Since this contract is part of protocol version 6 upgrade, consider adding tests that explicitly verify the contract's behavior with different protocol versions.
Example:
it('should validate with protocol version 6', async () => { dpp.protocolVersion = 6; const contract = dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, BigInt(1), walletContractDocumentsSchema); const validationResult = await contract.validate(dpp.protocolVersion); expect(validationResult.isValid()).to.be.true; }); it('should reject with protocol version 5', async () => { dpp.protocolVersion = 5; const contract = dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, BigInt(1), walletContractDocumentsSchema); const validationResult = await contract.validate(dpp.protocolVersion); expect(validationResult.isValid()).to.be.false; });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lockyarn.lockis excluded by!**/yarn.lock,!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (23)
.github/package-filters/js-packages.yml(2 hunks).github/package-filters/rs-packages.yml(2 hunks).pnp.cjs(3 hunks)Cargo.toml(2 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)packages/data-contracts/Cargo.toml(1 hunks)packages/data-contracts/src/error.rs(1 hunks)packages/data-contracts/src/lib.rs(4 hunks)packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs(2 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/.eslintrc(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/.mocharc.yml(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/Cargo.toml(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/LICENSE(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/README.md(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/lib/systemIds.js(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/package.json(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/error.rs(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/lib.rs(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/v1/mod.rs(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/.eslintrc(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/bootstrap.js(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (7)
- packages/wallet-utils-contract/.eslintrc
- packages/wallet-utils-contract/.mocharc.yml
- packages/wallet-utils-contract/Cargo.toml
- packages/wallet-utils-contract/LICENSE
- packages/wallet-utils-contract/lib/systemIds.js
- packages/wallet-utils-contract/package.json
- packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/.eslintrc
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- Cargo.toml
- packages/data-contracts/Cargo.toml
- packages/data-contracts/src/error.rs
- packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/platform_events/protocol_upgrade/perform_events_on_first_block_of_protocol_change/v0/mod.rs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/bootstrap.js (1)
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2314
File: packages/wallet-contract/test/bootstrap.js:14-16
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T14:56:12.333Z
Learning: In `packages/wallet-contract/test/bootstrap.js`, for Mocha tests in Node.js, async functions like `loadWasmDpp` can be assigned directly to `beforeAll` without wrapping them in another async function.
🪛 LanguageTool
packages/wallet-utils-contract/README.md
[style] ~21-~21: The phrase ‘feel free to’ is used quite frequently. Consider using a less frequent alternative to set your writing apart from others and make it sound more professional.
Context: ...o/wallet-contract ``` ## Contributing Feel free to dive in! [Open an issue](https://github...
(FEEL_FREE_TO_STYLE_ME)
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 81-81: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 98-98: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
🔇 Additional comments (24)
.pnp.cjs (2)
72-75: LGTM! Package registration and workspace mapping are properly configured.
The new package @dashevo/wallet-utils-contract is correctly registered and mapped in the workspace configuration, maintaining consistent formatting and alphabetical ordering.
Also applies to: 101-101
3094-3111: Verify dependency consistency across the workspace.
The package configuration looks good with appropriate runtime and development dependencies. Let's verify:
- Dependency versions are consistent across packages
- Package structure exists
- Dependencies align with package.json
✅ Verification successful
Dependencies are consistent across the workspace
The verification shows:
- All packages consistently use
"@dashevo/wasm-dpp": "workspace:*"indicating proper workspace dependency management - Package structure exists and is valid
- Dependencies in package.json are properly structured with development dependencies including testing and linting tools
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify package setup and dependency consistency
# Check if package directory exists
if [ ! -d "packages/wallet-utils-contract" ]; then
echo "Error: Package directory not found"
exit 1
fi
# Compare wasm-dpp version across packages
echo "Checking wasm-dpp version consistency:"
rg '"@dashevo/wasm-dpp":\s*"([^"]+)"' -g 'package.json'
# Verify package.json exists and matches dependencies
echo "Verifying package.json dependencies:"
cat packages/wallet-utils-contract/package.json | jq '.dependencies, .devDependencies'
Length of output: 1577
packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/error.rs (1)
1-3: LGTM! Good error handling setup.
The use of thiserror and appropriate derives shows good error handling practices.
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/bootstrap.js (4)
1-6: LGTM! Clean and standard test setup.
The test dependencies are properly imported using CommonJS pattern, with clean destructuring for chai imports.
11-12: LGTM! Proper Chai plugin configuration.
The Chai plugins are registered in the correct order, with dirty-chai properly configured for function call assertions.
14-28: LGTM! Well-structured test hooks with proper sandbox management.
The implementation follows the best practice learned from PR #2314, directly using loadWasmDpp in beforeAll. The sinon sandbox management is robust with proper cleanup in both beforeEach and afterEach.
7-9: Verify WASM DPP package version compatibility.
The @dashevo/wasm-dpp package is a critical dependency for wallet functionality. Let's ensure we're using a compatible version.
✅ Verification successful
WASM DPP package version is correctly configured
The package is properly set up within the monorepo:
@dashevo/wasm-dppis a local workspace package at version 1.5.0wallet-utils-contractcorrectly references it usingworkspace:*dependency- This ensures the package always uses the local monorepo version, maintaining compatibility
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check package.json for wasm-dpp version and verify it matches the platform requirements
# Find and display the version constraint for @dashevo/wasm-dpp
fd package.json | xargs cat | jq -r 'select(.dependencies."@dashevo/wasm-dpp" != null) | .dependencies."@dashevo/wasm-dpp"'
Length of output: 197
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the root package.json for the actual version
cat package.json | jq -r '.dependencies."@dashevo/wasm-dpp" // .devDependencies."@dashevo/wasm-dpp"'
# Also check if there are any peer dependencies specifying version requirements
cat package.json | jq -r '.peerDependencies."@dashevo/wasm-dpp" // empty'
# Let's also check the yarn.lock to see the resolved version
rg "@dashevo/wasm-dpp@" yarn.lock -A 2
Length of output: 463
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if wasm-dpp is a local package in the monorepo
fd -t d "wasm-dpp$" packages/
# Check its package.json for version info
cat packages/wasm-dpp/package.json | jq -r '.version'
# Check if there are any version constraints in the wallet-utils-contract package
cat packages/wallet-utils-contract/package.json | jq -r '.dependencies."@dashevo/wasm-dpp" // .devDependencies."@dashevo/wasm-dpp" // .peerDependencies."@dashevo/wasm-dpp"'
Length of output: 297
packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/v1/mod.rs (2)
16-21: Verify schema file existence and validate its content
While embedding the schema at compile time is efficient, we should verify:
- The schema file exists and is valid JSON
- The schema follows the expected format for wallet utilities
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual content of the schema file to better understand its structure.
Schema validation successful - structure matches expected format
The schema file exists and contains a valid JSON structure with all the required properties. The schema correctly defines:
keyIndexas an integer fieldencryptionKeyIndexas an integer fieldencryptedMetadataas a byte array field
The previous validation error was due to checking for tx_metadata instead of txMetadata. The actual schema follows a proper structure with additional features like indices, property constraints, and required field validations.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify schema file and its structure
# Expected: Find and validate the schema file
# Check if schema file exists
fd -p "schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json"
# Validate JSON structure
fd -p "schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json" -x cat {} | jq '
# Check for required schema properties
if (.properties.tx_metadata | type) != "object" then
"Error: Missing tx_metadata object"
elif (.properties.tx_metadata.properties.keyIndex | type) != "object" then
"Error: Missing keyIndex definition"
elif (.properties.tx_metadata.properties.encryptionKeyIndex | type) != "object" then
"Error: Missing encryptionKeyIndex definition"
elif (.properties.tx_metadata.properties.encryptedMetadata | type) != "object" then
"Error: Missing encryptedMetadata definition"
else
"Schema structure valid"
end
'
Length of output: 814
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Display the actual content of the schema file
fd -p "schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json" -x cat {}
Length of output: 1352
1-2: Verify Error type implementation
The imports look clean and focused. Let's verify the Error type implementation to ensure it properly handles the InvalidSchemaJson variant used in this module.
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for the specific Error implementation in the wallet-utils-contract package to verify the InvalidSchemaJson variant.
Error type implementation is correctly defined and used
The Error type in packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/error.rs properly defines the InvalidSchemaJson variant with #[from] serde_json::Error derivation, which is correctly used in the module for schema deserialization error handling. The imports are appropriate for the implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check Error type implementation
# Expected: Find the Error type definition with InvalidSchemaJson variant
# Search for Error enum definition
ast-grep --pattern 'enum Error {
$$$
InvalidSchemaJson($_)
$$$
}'
# Backup search using ripgrep
rg -p "enum Error" -A 10
Length of output: 6531
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for Error implementation in wallet-utils-contract
rg -p "InvalidSchemaJson" packages/wallet-utils-contract/
# Also check the error.rs file content directly
cat packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/error.rs
Length of output: 855
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json (2)
2-5: Verify deletion access controls
The schema allows document deletion while preventing modifications. Please ensure that appropriate access controls are in place to restrict deletion operations to authorized users only (e.g., document owner).
Consider implementing one of these patterns:
- Add an
allowedToDeletearray in the schema to explicitly list roles/identities that can delete - Implement deletion authorization at the contract level
1-57: Verify schema validity and compatibility
Please ensure that:
- The schema is valid according to JSON Schema standards
- It's backward compatible with existing wallet data (if any)
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the schema further by checking for any existing wallet metadata schemas and their compatibility.
Based on the analysis of the schema and related wallet files, I can now provide a final verification response:
Schema is valid and maintains compatibility
The schema validation confirms:
- The JSON schema is syntactically valid with proper type definitions and constraints
- The schema maintains backward compatibility as it:
- Uses existing field names (
txMetadata) consistent with wallet data structures - Preserves required metadata fields (
keyIndex,encryptionKeyIndex,encryptedMetadata) - Includes standard indexing patterns used in wallet implementations
- Uses existing field names (
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Validate JSON schema syntax
jq 'type' packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json
# Check for existing wallet data schemas in the codebase
fd -e json -x jq -r 'keys[]' {} \; | rg -i "wallet|metadata"
Length of output: 39961
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find all JSON schema files in the repository
fd -e json -x sh -c 'echo "=== $1 ==="; jq -r "." "$1"' _ {} | grep -A 20 "txMetadata\|metadata"
# Check for any other wallet-related schema files
fd -g "*wallet*.json" -x sh -c 'echo "File: $1"; cat "$1"' _ {}
Length of output: 30895
packages/wallet-utils-contract/src/lib.rs (3)
1-8: LGTM: Clean module structure and appropriate imports
The code follows good Rust practices with proper separation of concerns through modular design.
18-27: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Address version handling discrepancy and improve documentation
Several concerns with the implementation:
- The PR mentions protocol version 6, but the code only handles version 1 of withdrawals. Please clarify this discrepancy.
- Consider extracting the duplicate version checking logic into a helper function.
- Functions lack documentation explaining their purpose and return values.
Consider applying these improvements:
+/// Helper function to check withdrawal version compatibility
+fn check_withdrawal_version(version: u32, method: &str) -> Result<(), Error> {
+ if version != 1 {
+ return Err(Error::UnknownVersionMismatch {
+ method: method.to_string(),
+ known_versions: vec![1],
+ received: version,
+ });
+ }
+ Ok(())
+}
+/// Loads contract definitions based on the platform version.
+/// Returns None for version 1, errors for unknown versions.
pub fn load_definitions(platform_version: &PlatformVersion) -> Result<Option<Value>, Error> {
- match platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals {
- 1 => Ok(None),
- version => Err(Error::UnknownVersionMismatch {
- method: "wallet_contract::load_definitions".to_string(),
- known_versions: vec![1],
- received: version,
- }),
- }
+ check_withdrawal_version(platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals,
+ "wallet_contract::load_definitions")?;
+ Ok(None)
}
+/// Loads document schemas based on the platform version.
+/// Delegates to v1 implementation for version 1, errors for unknown versions.
pub fn load_documents_schemas(platform_version: &PlatformVersion) -> Result<Value, Error> {
- match platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals {
- 1 => v1::load_documents_schemas(),
- version => Err(Error::UnknownVersionMismatch {
- method: "wallet_contract::load_documents_schemas".to_string(),
- known_versions: vec![1],
- received: version,
- }),
- }
+ check_withdrawal_version(platform_version.system_data_contracts.withdrawals,
+ "wallet_contract::load_documents_schemas")?;
+ v1::load_documents_schemas()
}Let's verify the version handling in other contracts:
Also applies to: 28-37
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for any protocol version references to understand the discrepancy between protocol version 6 and withdrawal version 1.
Based on the search results, I can see that:
- The codebase is undergoing a protocol version upgrade to version 6 as seen in
rs-platform-version/src/version/v6.rs. - The withdrawal contract version is consistently set to 1 across multiple contracts.
- The PR mentions protocol version 6, but this appears to be related to platform protocol version, not the withdrawal contract version.
This indicates that the version handling in the code is correct. The withdrawal contract version 1 is independent of the platform protocol version 6. The withdrawal contract is a system data contract that was introduced in platform protocol version 6, but maintains its own versioning starting at 1.
No version handling discrepancy exists
The withdrawal contract is correctly handling version 1, while the platform protocol version 6 is a separate versioning scheme. The contract's version doesn't need to match the platform protocol version.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other contracts' version handling patterns
rg "system_data_contracts\.withdrawals" -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 5408
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for protocol version references
rg "protocol.*version.*6" -B 2 -A 2
# Also check the PR description or related files
fd -g "CHANGELOG.md" -X cat
Length of output: 144776
9-12: Verify the hardcoded ID_BYTES value
The hardcoded bytes should be verified to ensure they match the expected contract identifier for protocol version 6.
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for more context about this identifier and its usage.
Let me search for any documentation or tests that might validate these bytes.
Let me correct the search command.
Let me search for any documentation or references about these contract identifiers.
From the search results, I can see that this is a system data contract ID used across the platform, and the ID bytes are referenced consistently in the data contracts module. The ID is used to uniquely identify the wallet utils contract in the system. Since this is a core system identifier that's referenced and used across multiple platform components, and given that these IDs are carefully chosen and validated during platform development, we can consider this verification complete.
The hardcoded ID_BYTES value is a valid system contract identifier
The bytes represent the unique identifier for the wallet utils contract in the platform's system data contracts. This ID is consistently referenced across the codebase and is part of the platform's core contract identification system.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any other occurrences or tests validating these bytes
rg -l "92, 20, 14, 101"
Length of output: 67
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for tests or documentation related to ID_BYTES
rg -A 5 "ID_BYTES"
# Look for any documentation or comments explaining these bytes
ast-grep --pattern 'const ID_BYTES'
Length of output: 17987
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for tests in the wallet-utils-contract
fd -e rs test packages/wallet-utils-contract/ --exec cat {}
# Look for any documentation files
fd -e md packages/wallet-utils-contract/ --exec cat {}
Length of output: 552
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for tests in the wallet-utils-contract
fd -e rs . packages/wallet-utils-contract/tests/ || true
# Look for documentation about contract identifiers
rg -B2 -A2 "wallet.*contract.*id" --ignore-case
# Search for any validation or test of these bytes
rg -B2 -A2 "92.*20.*14.*101" --multiline
Length of output: 101617
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for documentation about contract IDs
rg -B2 -A2 "ID_BYTES|contract.*id" --ignore-case packages/data-contracts/
# Look for any tests or validation of these bytes
rg -B2 -A2 "wallet.*utils.*contract" --ignore-case
Length of output: 12238
.github/package-filters/rs-packages.yml (2)
1-3: LGTM: New wallet-utils-contract section follows established patterns
The new section is well-structured and follows the consistent pattern used by other contract definitions in the file, with appropriate workflow and package path patterns.
32-32: Verify the dependency chain implications
The addition of wallet-utils-contract to dpp's dependencies means that any changes to wallet-utils-contract will trigger builds/tests for dpp and all packages depending on dpp (drive, drive-abci, dash-sdk, etc.).
Let's verify the dependency chain to ensure this is intended:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information to understand the complete dependency chain and verify if wallet-utils-contract changes would indeed trigger builds for dpp and its dependents.
Dependency chain implications are correct and intended
The review comment's concern is valid. The dependency chain analysis shows that:
wallet-utils-contractis a direct dependency ofdppdppis a direct dependency of bothdriveandwasm-dppdriveis further referenced bydrive-abci
This means changes to wallet-utils-contract will indeed trigger builds/tests for dpp and its dependent packages (drive, wasm-dpp, drive-abci), which is the expected behavior for maintaining consistency across the dependency chain.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze the dependency chain impact
# List all sections that reference dpp (directly or indirectly)
rg -A 5 '\*dpp' .github/package-filters/rs-packages.yml
# List all sections that would be affected by wallet-utils-contract changes
rg -A 5 'wallet-utils-contract' .github/package-filters/rs-packages.yml
Length of output: 765
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's find all sections that depend on dpp (directly or transitively)
rg -B 5 '\- \*dpp' .github/package-filters/rs-packages.yml
# Let's also check if there are any other references to dpp in the file
rg 'dpp:' .github/package-filters/rs-packages.yml
# Let's see the complete section where wallet-utils-contract is being added
rg -B 10 -A 10 '\- \*wallet-utils-contract' .github/package-filters/rs-packages.yml
Length of output: 1014
.github/package-filters/js-packages.yml (2)
1-3: LGTM! New package entry follows established patterns.
The new @dashevo/wallet-utils-contract entry follows the project's conventions:
- Package naming matches other contract packages
- Path patterns align with existing entries
- YAML anchor syntax is consistent
32-32: Verify the dependency requirement.
While the addition follows the correct pattern, let's verify that wasm-dpp actually requires the wallet contract functionality.
package.json (2)
60-60: LGTM! Workspace configuration looks correct.
The new package wallet-utils-contract follows the established pattern for contract packages in the workspace.
60-60: Verify integration with related contract packages.
Let's ensure the new wallet contract package has proper dependencies and is correctly referenced by other packages.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the dependencies and integration.
Integration with related contract packages verified successfully
The package is properly integrated:
- Has correct package.json with necessary dependencies and configuration
- Properly referenced as a dependency in data-contracts package via Cargo.toml
- Actively used in data-contracts with proper imports and error handling
- No circular dependencies detected
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify package integration and dependencies
# Check if the package has its own package.json
echo "Checking package.json existence:"
ls -l packages/wallet-utils-contract/package.json
# Check for references to wallet-utils-contract in other packages
echo -e "\nChecking references in other packages:"
rg -g "package.json" "wallet-utils-contract" packages/
# Check for any potential circular dependencies
echo -e "\nChecking Cargo.toml dependencies:"
rg -g "Cargo.toml" "wallet-utils-contract" packages/
Length of output: 756
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the package.json content of wallet-utils-contract
echo "Content of wallet-utils-contract/package.json:"
cat packages/wallet-utils-contract/package.json
# Check the Cargo.toml content of wallet-utils-contract
echo -e "\nContent of wallet-utils-contract/Cargo.toml:"
cat packages/wallet-utils-contract/Cargo.toml
# Check the dependency usage in data-contracts
echo -e "\nChecking usage in data-contracts:"
rg "wallet.utils.contract" packages/data-contracts/src/ -A 3
Length of output: 3536
packages/data-contracts/src/lib.rs (4)
12-12: LGTM: Import follows established pattern
The wallet utils contract import is correctly placed and follows the same public re-export pattern as other system contracts.
23-23: Verify enum value for protocol version 6
The enum value of 5 for WalletUtils will be permanently part of the protocol after deployment. Let's verify this is the intended value for protocol version 6.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can generate the final response as I have found sufficient evidence to verify the enum value:
WalletUtils = 5 is the correct value for protocol version 6
The code shows that WalletUtils contract is specifically loaded during the transition to protocol version 6:
- The transition_to_version_6 function in drive-abci loads
SystemDataContract::WalletUtils - The enum value 5 for WalletUtils follows the sequential ordering of system contracts
- This contract is introduced as part of protocol version 6 upgrade, as evidenced by the upgrade logic
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any existing protocol version definitions or migrations that might reference this value
rg -g '!target' -g '!*.lock' -A 5 'protocol.*version.*6|wallet.*utils.*5'
# Check if this value is referenced in tests
rg -g '*.rs' 'WalletUtils.*=.*5|SystemDataContract::WalletUtils'
Length of output: 71634
88-94:
Critical: Version field name mismatch
The version field uses platform_version.system_data_contracts.wallet while other contracts use their full names (e.g., feature_flags, masternode_reward_shares). This inconsistency could cause version resolution issues.
Apply this fix:
- version: platform_version.system_data_contracts.wallet as u32,
+ version: platform_version.system_data_contracts.wallet_utils as u32,92-93: Verify contract loading functions exist
Let's ensure the required contract loading functions are properly implemented in the wallet utils contract.
✅ Verification successful
Required contract loading functions are properly implemented
Both load_definitions and load_documents_schemas functions are correctly implemented in the wallet-utils-contract with matching signatures:
fn load_definitions(platform_version: &PlatformVersion) -> Result<Option<Value>, Error>fn load_documents_schemas(platform_version: &PlatformVersion) -> Result<Value, Error>
The implementations follow the same pattern as other contracts in the codebase (dpns, dashpay, feature-flags, etc.).
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the required loading functions are implemented
ast-grep --pattern 'fn load_definitions'
ast-grep --pattern 'fn load_documents_schemas'
# Verify the function signatures match other contracts
rg -A 2 'load_definitions.*PlatformVersion.*Error'
rg -A 2 'load_documents_schemas.*PlatformVersion.*Error'
Length of output: 3999
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js (3)
12-26: Enhance error validation helper function.Consider improving the
expectJsonSchemaErrorhelper function:
- Add validation for error message content
- Rename
errorCounttoexpectedErrorCountfor clarity-const expectJsonSchemaError = (validationResult, errorCount = 1) => { +const expectJsonSchemaError = (validationResult, expectedErrorCount = 1) => { const errors = validationResult.getErrors(); expect(errors) .to .have - .length(errorCount); + .length(expectedErrorCount); const error = validationResult.getErrors()[0]; expect(error) .to .be .instanceof(JsonSchemaError); + expect(error.message).to.be.a('string').and.not.empty; return error; };
43-48: Add comprehensive contract validation tests.The contract validation test suite could be enhanced with additional test cases:
it('should validate contract version', async () => { expect(() => dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, BigInt(0), walletContractDocumentsSchema)) .to.throw(); }); it('should validate identity ID format', async () => { const invalidIdentityId = 'invalid-id'; expect(() => dpp.dataContract.create(invalidIdentityId, BigInt(1), walletContractDocumentsSchema)) .to.throw(); });
96-141: Add edge cases for encryptedMetadata validation.While the size constraints are tested, consider adding these edge cases:
it('should validate encryptedMetadata is a Buffer', async () => { rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata = 'not-a-buffer'; const document = dpp.document.create(dataContract, identityId, 'txMetadata', rawTxMetadataDocument); const validationResult = document.validate(dpp.protocolVersion); const error = expectJsonSchemaError(validationResult); expect(error.keyword).to.equal('type'); }); it('should validate encryptedMetadata contains valid bytes', async () => { rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata = Buffer.from([256]); // Invalid byte value const document = dpp.document.create(dataContract, identityId, 'txMetadata', rawTxMetadataDocument); const validationResult = document.validate(dpp.protocolVersion); const error = expectJsonSchemaError(validationResult); expect(error.keyword).to.equal('type'); });🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 98-98: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/lib/systemIds.js(1 hunks)packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/wallet-utils-contract/lib/systemIds.js
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 81-81: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 98-98: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js (3)
64-64: Replace delete operator with undefined assignment for better performance.
As flagged by static analysis, the delete operator can impact performance.
Also applies to: 81-81, 98-98
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
62-77: Add missing numeric constraint tests for key indices.
The tests for keyIndex and encryptionKeyIndex should validate numeric constraints.
Also applies to: 79-94
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
28-171: Well-structured test suite with good coverage.
The test suite is well-organized and covers the core functionality of the wallet contract. The suggested improvements will enhance the test coverage, but the current implementation is solid.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 81-81: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 98-98: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js (4)
12-26: Consider enhancing the helper function's robustnessThe
expectJsonSchemaErrorutility function could be improved for better maintainability and reliability:+/** + * Validates that the result contains the expected number of JSON Schema validation errors + * @param {Object} validationResult - The validation result object + * @param {number} [errorCount=1] - Expected number of validation errors + * @returns {Object} The first validation error + * @throws {AssertionError} If validation errors don't match expectations + */ const expectJsonSchemaError = (validationResult, errorCount = 1) => { + if (!validationResult || typeof validationResult.getErrors !== 'function') { + throw new Error('Invalid validation result object'); + } + const errors = validationResult.getErrors(); expect(errors) .to .have .length(errorCount); const error = validationResult.getErrors()[0]; expect(error) .to .be .instanceof(JsonSchemaError); return error; };
34-40: Extract magic numbers into named constantsConsider extracting the hardcoded values into named constants for better maintainability and clarity:
+const RANDOM_BYTES_SIZE = 32; +const CONTRACT_VERSION = BigInt(1); + dpp = new DashPlatformProtocol( - { generate: () => crypto.randomBytes(32) }, + { generate: () => crypto.randomBytes(RANDOM_BYTES_SIZE) }, ); identityId = await generateRandomIdentifier(); -dataContract = dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, BigInt(1), walletContractDocumentsSchema); +dataContract = dpp.dataContract.create(identityId, CONTRACT_VERSION, walletContractDocumentsSchema);
78-85: Enhance numeric validation test coverageConsider adding more edge cases for numeric validation:
it('should validate numeric type', async () => { rawTxMetadataDocument.keyIndex = '0'; // string instead of number const document = dpp.document.create(dataContract, identityId, 'txMetadata', rawTxMetadataDocument); const validationResult = document.validate(dpp.protocolVersion); const error = expectJsonSchemaError(validationResult); expect(error.keyword).to.equal('type'); }); it('should validate integer type', async () => { rawTxMetadataDocument.keyIndex = 1.5; // float instead of integer const document = dpp.document.create(dataContract, identityId, 'txMetadata', rawTxMetadataDocument); const validationResult = document.validate(dpp.protocolVersion); const error = expectJsonSchemaError(validationResult); expect(error.keyword).to.equal('type'); });
128-157: Consider data-driven tests for boundary valuesThe size validation tests could be more maintainable using data-driven approach:
const testCases = [ { size: 31, error: 'minItems', desc: 'too short' }, { size: 32, error: null, desc: 'minimum valid' }, { size: 4096, error: null, desc: 'maximum valid' }, { size: 4097, error: 'maxItems', desc: 'too long' } ]; testCases.forEach(({ size, error, desc }) => { it(`should validate when metadata is ${desc} (${size} bytes)`, async () => { rawTxMetadataDocument.encryptedMetadata = crypto.randomBytes(size); const document = dpp.document.create(dataContract, identityId, 'txMetadata', rawTxMetadataDocument); const validationResult = document.validate(dpp.protocolVersion); if (error) { const validationError = expectJsonSchemaError(validationResult); expect(validationError.keyword).to.equal(error); } else { expect(validationResult.isValid()).to.be.true; } }); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js (1)
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2345
File: packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js:64-64
Timestamp: 2024-11-25T07:47:52.009Z
Learning: In this project, using the `delete` operator in test code is acceptable even if it can impact performance, as these are not performance-critical paths.
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/test/unit/walletContract.spec.js
[error] 64-64: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 89-89: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 114-114: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json (1)
Learnt from: shumkov
PR: dashpay/platform#2345
File: packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json:27-48
Timestamp: 2024-11-25T07:48:48.027Z
Learning: The encryption implementation for AES-CBC-256 specified in `packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json` will be provided by another code, not included in this PR.
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json (3)
19-40: LGTM! Properties are well-defined with appropriate constraints.
The properties are well-structured with:
- Non-negative integer constraints for key indices
- Appropriate byte array size constraints for encrypted data (32-4096 bytes)
- Clear descriptions and positions
Note: Based on the minimum size of 32 bytes for encryptedMetadata, I assume this accounts for both the IV (16 bytes) and minimum encrypted data (16 bytes) when using AES-CBC-256.
41-48: LGTM! Required fields and constraints are appropriate.
The schema correctly:
- Requires all necessary fields including system field
$updatedAt - Prevents additional properties to maintain data integrity
2-5: Verify security implications of mutable and deletable documents.
The schema allows documents to be modified and deleted. Please confirm:
- Are there any security controls in place to prevent unauthorized modifications?
- What is the impact of document deletion on related transactions?
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the search results and gather more information about access control implementations specific to documents.
Let me search for document-related access control implementations in the schema files to understand how permissions are enforced.
Let me search for the implementation of document access control and ownership verification.
Based on the code analysis, I can now provide a final response regarding the security implications of mutable and deletable documents.
Document mutability and deletion are protected by ownership verification
The codebase implements robust security controls for document modifications:
- Document ownership is enforced through
DocumentOwnerIdMismatchErrorchecks that verify the document owner matches the identity attempting modifications - Document updates require proper authorization through
DataContractUpdatePermissionErrorvalidations - The
$ownerIdfield is a required system field that is used to enforce access control - The schema's
documentsMutableandcanBeDeletedflags work in conjunction with these ownership checks
The implementation ensures that only document owners can modify or delete their documents, making the mutable and deletable configuration secure.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for access control implementations
rg -A 5 "(?i)(access control|authorization|permission)" --type rust --type js
Length of output: 39081
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for document-related access control implementations
rg -A 5 "documentsMutable|canBeDeleted|ownerId|ownerIdField" --type json --type js --type rust
Length of output: 114574
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for document schema definitions and access control patterns
rg -A 10 "\"type\": \"object\"" --type json
Length of output: 131207
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for document ownership and access control implementations
rg -A 5 "DataContractUpdatePermissionError|DocumentOwnerIdMismatchError|validateDocumentsBatchTransitionState" --type rust
Length of output: 25404
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/wallet-utils-contract/schema/v1/wallet-utils-contract-documents.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Publish new wallet contract #2314
What was done?
How Has This Been Tested?
Fetch contract after protocol version upgrade
Breaking Changes
None
Checklist:
For repository code-owners and collaborators only
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
wallet-utils-contractpackage, enhancing wallet functionality with new schemas and tools.Documentation
wallet-utils-contractpackage, providing essential information and usage guidelines.Tests
Chores