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

audit fixes #113

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

audit fixes #113

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

Reecepbcups
Copy link
Collaborator

@Reecepbcups Reecepbcups commented Dec 20, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Introduced a validation step in the BurnHeldBalance method to enhance error handling for invalid requests.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Simplified error message handling in the Payout method, which may improve clarity in error reporting.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces modifications to the keeper.go and msg_server.go files in the x/manifest/keeper package. The changes primarily focus on error handling and validation. In keeper.go, the fmt package import is removed, affecting error message formatting. In msg_server.go, a new validation step is added to the BurnHeldBalance method to enhance request validation, ensuring that the burn held message meets specific criteria before processing.

Changes

File Change Summary
x/manifest/keeper/keeper.go Removed fmt package import; simplified error message construction in Payout method
x/manifest/keeper/msg_server.go Added req.Validate() check in BurnHeldBalance method to validate burn held message

Poem

🐰 A Rabbit's Validation Tale 🥕

In keeper's realm, where errors dance,
Validation steps now take their stance,
No fmt, no frills, just pure control,
Burning messages with a cleaner role!

hop hop 🌟

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request. We would love to hear your feedback on Discord.


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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @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: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
x/manifest/keeper/msg_server.go (1)

40-41: Consider centralizing error definitions

While the error handling is correct, consider moving common error definitions to the types package for better maintainability and consistency. This would also make it easier to localize error messages in the future.

Example approach:

// In types/errors.go
+var (
+    ErrInvalidBurnHeldMessage = sdkerrors.Register(ModuleName, 1, "invalid burn held message")
+    ErrInvalidAuthority      = sdkerrors.Register(ModuleName, 2, "invalid authority; expected %s, got %s")
+)

// In this file
-return nil, fmt.Errorf("invalid burn held message: %w", err)
+return nil, ErrInvalidBurnHeldMessage.Wrap(err)
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c38626d and bf330a6.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • x/manifest/keeper/keeper.go (0 hunks)
  • x/manifest/keeper/msg_server.go (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • x/manifest/keeper/keeper.go
🔇 Additional comments (2)
x/manifest/keeper/msg_server.go (2)

39-42: LGTM: Consistent validation pattern

The added validation step aligns well with the existing pattern in the Payout method, improving code consistency and robustness.


39-42: Verify consistent validation across message handlers

Let's ensure this audit fix pattern is applied consistently across all message handlers in the codebase.

✅ Verification successful

The previous pattern might have been too specific. Let's try with a more general pattern to find message handlers and their validation patterns.


I need to see the actual message handler implementations to verify if the validation pattern is consistently applied across all handlers in the msg_server.go file.


Validation is consistently applied across message handlers

The validation pattern is correctly and consistently implemented across all message handlers in the module:

  • Both Payout and BurnHeldBalance handlers perform req.Validate() checks
  • Both handlers follow the same error wrapping pattern with descriptive messages
  • Both messages (MsgPayout and MsgBurnHeldBalance) have their respective Validate() methods defined in types/msgs.go
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for other Msg handlers that might need similar validation
ast-grep --pattern 'func ($x msgServer) $METHOD(ctx context.Context, req *types.Msg$_) (*types.Msg$_Response, error) {
  $$$
}'

# Look for any TODO or AUDIT comments that might need addressing
rg -i "todo|audit|fixme" "x/manifest/"

Length of output: 168


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different pattern to find message handlers
ast-grep --pattern 'func ($x msgServer) $_(goCtx context.Context, msg *types.$_) (*types.$_, error) {
  $$$
}'

# Also search for Validate() calls to see the validation pattern
rg "Validate\(\)" "x/manifest/"

# Look for message handler files specifically
fd "msg_server.*\.go$"

Length of output: 1267


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the message handler implementations to see validation patterns
cat x/manifest/keeper/msg_server.go

Length of output: 1612

This reverts commit 64679f4.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.99%. Comparing base (c38626d) to head (6988502).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
x/manifest/keeper/msg_server.go 0.00% 2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #113      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.96%   77.99%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          33       33              
  Lines        2187     2190       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         1705     1708       +3     
  Misses        395      395              
  Partials       87       87              

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant