Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[refactor] Add bucket validation util functions #4019

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 12, 2024

Conversation

envestcc
Copy link
Member

@envestcc envestcc commented Dec 15, 2023

Description

introduce batch of util functions to validate a bucket, reducing redundant code

Fixes #(issue)

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • Code refactor or improvement

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

  • make test

Test Configuration:

  • Firmware version:
  • Hardware:
  • Toolchain:
  • SDK:

Checklist:

  • [] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • [] I have performed a self-review of my code
  • [] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • [] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • [] My changes generate no new warnings
  • [] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • [] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • [] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

@envestcc envestcc changed the title [refactor] Introduce generic bucketValidate func [refactor] Introduce generic bucketValidate func (based on 4017, 4018) Dec 28, 2023
@envestcc envestcc changed the title [refactor] Introduce generic bucketValidate func (based on 4017, 4018) [refactor] Introduce generic bucketValidate func (based on 4018) Jan 5, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 5, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 580 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (e1f0636) 75.38% compared to head (167189e) 76.11%.
Report is 147 commits behind head on master.

Files Patch % Lines
blockindex/contractstaking/event_handler.go 67.23% 45 Missing and 13 partials ⚠️
action/protocol/staking/staking_statereader.go 69.76% 35 Missing and 17 partials ⚠️
action/protocol/execution/evm/evm.go 48.38% 47 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
api/coreservice.go 62.37% 33 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
api/web3server.go 79.11% 30 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
action/candidate_endorsement.go 0.00% 31 Missing ⚠️
action/protocol/staking/protocol.go 33.33% 28 Missing ⚠️
action/candidate_activate.go 0.00% 25 Missing ⚠️
...tion/protocol/staking/contractstake_bucket_type.go 0.00% 24 Missing ⚠️
blockindex/contractstaking/util.go 39.47% 22 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
... and 31 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4019      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.38%   76.11%   +0.73%     
==========================================
  Files         303      335      +32     
  Lines       25923    28525    +2602     
==========================================
+ Hits        19541    21711    +2170     
- Misses       5360     5716     +356     
- Partials     1022     1098      +76     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@envestcc envestcc marked this pull request as ready for review January 5, 2024 12:06
@envestcc envestcc changed the title [refactor] Introduce generic bucketValidate func (based on 4018) [refactor] Introduce generic bucketValidate func Jan 10, 2024
@envestcc envestcc changed the title [refactor] Introduce generic bucketValidate func [refactor] Add bucket validation util functions Jan 11, 2024
}

func validateBucketStake(bucket *VoteBucket, isStaked bool) ReceiptError {
if bucket.isUnstaked() == isStaked {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so it returns error for isStaked = both true and false?

return nil
}

func validateBucketCandidate(bucket *VoteBucket, candidate address.Address) ReceiptError {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

where is this needed?

// endorsed bucket
r.NoError(esm.Put(bktIdx, &Endorsement{ExpireHeight: endorsementNotExpireHeight}))
r.Nil(validateBucketEndorsement(esm, bkt, (true), blkHeight))
r.ErrorContains(validateBucketEndorsement(esm, bkt, (false), blkHeight), "bucket is already endorsed")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

false, not (false)

// unendorsing bucket
r.NoError(esm.Put(bktIdx, &Endorsement{ExpireHeight: blkHeight + 1}))
r.Nil(validateBucketEndorsement(esm, bkt, (true), blkHeight))
r.ErrorContains(validateBucketEndorsement(esm, bkt, (false), blkHeight), "bucket is already endorsed")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same here

// endorse expired bucket
r.NoError(esm.Put(bktIdx, &Endorsement{ExpireHeight: blkHeight}))
r.Nil(validateBucketEndorsement(esm, bkt, (false), blkHeight))
r.ErrorContains(validateBucketEndorsement(esm, bkt, (true), blkHeight), "bucket is not endorsed")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and these 2

Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Jan 12, 2024

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions

3.4% Duplication on New Code (required ≤ 3%)

See analysis details on SonarCloud

@envestcc envestcc merged commit 590c4bc into iotexproject:master Jan 12, 2024
3 of 5 checks passed
@envestcc envestcc deleted the pr_bucketvalid branch January 12, 2024 10:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants