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

feat: merge dev into main #123

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 18, 2024
Merged

feat: merge dev into main #123

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 18, 2024

Conversation

seolaoh
Copy link
Contributor

@seolaoh seolaoh commented Nov 18, 2024

Description

This PR is for release v0.5.4.

@seolaoh seolaoh requested a review from a team November 18, 2024 04:32
@seolaoh seolaoh self-assigned this Nov 18, 2024
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 18, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes involve modifications to the zkMerkleTreeNodeBlobFunctions and zktrieNodeBlobFunctions functions in the trie/iterator.go file, specifically altering how empty nodes are handled by returning a canonical value instead of nil. Additionally, new test cases have been added in trie/iterator_test.go to validate the behavior of the iterators when dealing with empty root nodes in zk merkle trees and zk tries, enhancing test coverage for these edge cases.

Changes

File Change Summary
trie/iterator.go Updated function signatures for zkMerkleTreeNodeBlobFunctions and zktrieNodeBlobFunctions. Altered return value for empty nodes in zkMerkleTreeNodeBlobFunctions.
trie/iterator_test.go Added new test cases for empty root nodes in zk merkle trees and zk tries, including TestMerkleTreeIterator, TestEmptyRoot, TestZkMerkleTree, and TestZkTrie.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant Iterator
    participant Trie

    User->>Iterator: Initialize with empty trie
    Iterator->>Trie: Check for nodes
    Trie-->>Iterator: No nodes found
    Iterator->>User: Return empty result
Loading

Warning

There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool’s configuration or disable the tool if it’s a critical failure.

🔧 golangci-lint

level=warning msg="[config_reader] The configuration option run.skip-files is deprecated, please use issues.exclude-files."
level=warning msg="The linter 'exportloopref' is deprecated (since v1.60.2) due to: Since Go1.22 (loopvar) this linter is no longer relevant. Replaced by copyloopvar."


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
trie/iterator_test.go (1)

664-685: Enhance test cases with more specific assertions and descriptive names.

While the test cases correctly verify basic functionality, consider the following improvements:

  1. Use more descriptive test names that indicate the expected behavior
  2. Add positive assertions instead of relying on t.Fail()
  3. Add specific error type checking

Here's a suggested improvement:

 t.Run("empty root", func(t *testing.T) {
-    t.Run("zk merkle tree", func(t *testing.T) {
+    t.Run("zk merkle tree iterator should not yield nodes for empty root", func(t *testing.T) {
         trie := NewEmptyMerkleTrie(NewZkDatabase(rawdb.NewMemoryDatabase()))
         it, _ := trie.NodeIterator(nil)
+        nodeCount := 0
         for it.Next(true) {
-            t.Fail()
+            nodeCount++
         }
+        if nodeCount != 0 {
+            t.Errorf("expected no nodes, but got %d nodes", nodeCount)
+        }
         if it.Error() != nil {
             t.Error(it.Error())
         }
     })
-    t.Run("zk trie", func(t *testing.T) {
+    t.Run("zk trie iterator should not yield nodes for empty root", func(t *testing.T) {
         trie, _ := NewZkTrie(common.Hash{}, NewZkDatabase(rawdb.NewDatabase(memorydb.New())))
         it, _ := trie.NodeIterator(nil)
+        nodeCount := 0
         for it.Next(true) {
-            t.Fail()
+            nodeCount++
         }
+        if nodeCount != 0 {
+            t.Errorf("expected no nodes, but got %d nodes", nodeCount)
+        }
         if it.Error() != nil {
             t.Error(it.Error())
         }
     })
 })
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1209a8e and d2fcde4.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • funding.json is excluded by !**/*.json
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • trie/iterator.go (1 hunks)
  • trie/iterator_test.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
trie/iterator.go (1)

859-859: LGTM! Consider verifying downstream impact.

The change to return zk.EmptyNodeValue.CanonicalValue() instead of nil for empty nodes improves consistency in node handling.

Let's verify if any code relies on nil returns for empty nodes:

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more specific information about the usage context.


Let me search for more specific information about the EmptyNodeValue implementation.


Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:

Change to return canonical empty node value is correct and safe

The modification to return zk.EmptyNodeValue.CanonicalValue() is a proper implementation as it:

  • Returns a standardized byte representation []byte{byte(trie.NodeTypeEmpty)} for empty nodes
  • Aligns with the ZK Merkle tree's empty node handling throughout the codebase
  • Is used consistently in other parts of the codebase for empty node representation
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for code that might expect nil returns from zkMerkleTreeNodeBlobFunctions
# Look for direct function calls and error handling patterns

# Search for direct usage of the function
rg -A 5 "zkMerkleTreeNodeBlobFunctions"

# Search for nil checks after blob retrieval
rg -A 5 "if\s+blob\s*==\s*nil"

Length of output: 2016


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for the usage of EmptyNodeValue and related code
rg -A 5 "EmptyNodeValue"

# Search for any nil checks specifically in the trie package
rg -A 5 "== nil" trie/

# Look for the implementation of CanonicalValue
ast-grep --pattern 'func ($x *$_) CanonicalValue() []byte'

Length of output: 41935


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for EmptyNode implementation and its CanonicalValue method
rg -A 10 "type EmptyNode struct" trie/

# Search for any tests or code that verifies empty node behavior
rg -A 5 "TestEmpty.*Node" trie/

# Look for any code that handles empty node values
rg -A 5 "EmptyNode.*Value" trie/

Length of output: 4531

Comment on lines +667 to +668
it, _ := trie.NodeIterator(nil)
for it.Next(true) {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Check NodeIterator errors before proceeding with iteration.

The error returned from NodeIterator() should be checked before starting iteration.

Apply this pattern to both test cases:

-        it, _ := trie.NodeIterator(nil)
+        it, err := trie.NodeIterator(nil)
+        if err != nil {
+            t.Fatalf("failed to create iterator: %v", err)
+        }
         for it.Next(true) {

Also applies to: 677-678

@seolaoh seolaoh merged commit 3d7ffb4 into main Nov 18, 2024
11 checks passed
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.

7 participants