feat: updated to latest protos #248
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces multiple changes across various modules in the Changes
Poem
🪧 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: 17
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (31)
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/authz/module/v1.rs (1)
4-4: Approved: Appropriate use ofCopytrait for zero-sized type.The change from
ClonetoCopyfor theModulestruct is appropriate and aligns with Rust best practices for zero-sized types. This modification allows for implicit copying ofModuleinstances, which can lead to more ergonomic code usage.Consider adding a brief comment explaining why
Copyis implemented for this empty struct. This can help future maintainers understand the rationale behind this design choice. For example:/// Module is the config object of the authz module. /// /// This is an empty struct implementing `Copy` as it's a zero-sized type, /// allowing for efficient implicit copying. #[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)] #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.authz.module.v1.Module")] pub struct Module {}packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/base/v1beta1.rs (1)
Confirmed: Incorrect
type_urlmodifications incosmos/base/v1beta1.rsThe verification process has confirmed the issue raised in the initial review comment. The file
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/base/v1beta1.rscontains four instances of incorrectly modifiedtype_urlattributes:
CoinCoinCoinDecCoinDecCoinDecCoinIntProtoIntProtoIntProtoDecProtoDecProtoDecProtoThese modifications are erroneous and need to be reverted. No other files in the codebase exhibit this particular issue.
Action items:
- Revert the changes in
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/base/v1beta1.rsto correct thetype_urlattributes.- Conduct a thorough review of the change that introduced this error to understand how it occurred.
- Consider implementing a lint rule or automated check to validate
type_urlattributes and prevent similar issues in future commits.- Add a test case that verifies the correctness of
type_urlattributes in the affected file.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
8-41: Systematic error intype_urlmodifications across all structsThere appears to be a systematic error in the modification of
type_urlattributes for all structs in this file. Eachtype_urlhas been changed to repeat the struct name three times, which is incorrect and could lead to serious compatibility issues.Please revert all these changes to maintain the correct
type_urlformat. Additionally, I recommend the following actions:
- Review the entire codebase for similar incorrect modifications.
- If this was due to an automated process, please check and correct the script or tool used.
- Add tests to verify the correctness of
type_urlattributes to prevent such issues in the future.To help verify the extent of this issue, please run the following script:
This script will help identify any other instances of this issue and list all
type_urlattributes for manual verification.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for incorrect type_url patterns across the codebase echo "Searching for incorrect type_url patterns..." rg --type rust 'type_url\s*=\s*"/[^"]+(\w+)\1\1"' echo "Listing all type_url attributes for manual verification..." rg --type rust 'type_url\s*=\s*"[^"]+"'Length of output: 155665
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for incorrect type_url patterns across the codebase using PCRE2 echo "Searching for incorrect type_url patterns with repeated struct names..." rg --pcre2 --type rust 'type_url\s*=\s*"/cosmos\.base\.v1beta1\.(\w+)\1\1"' echo "Listing all type_url attributes for manual verification..." rg --type rust 'type_url\s*=\s*"[^"]+"'Length of output: 156035
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/feegrant/v1beta1.rs (1)
Inconsistent Implementation of
CopyTrait in Response StructsThe verification reveals that numerous response structs across various files do not implement the
Copytrait. This inconsistency may lead to inefficiencies in handling these types throughout the codebase.
- Example files lacking the
Copytrait:
packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/permissions/v1beta1.rspackages/injective-std/src/types/injective/wasmx/v1.rspackages/injective-std/src/types/injective/tokenfactory/v1beta1.rs- (and many others as per the provided output)
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
179-216: Summary: Consistent implementation ofCopytrait for response typesThe changes in this file consistently add the
Copytrait to all response structs (MsgGrantAllowanceResponse,MsgRevokeAllowanceResponse, andMsgPruneAllowancesResponse). This modification is appropriate for these zero-sized types and will allow for more efficient handling throughout the codebase.To ensure project-wide consistency, it may be beneficial to verify if similar changes should be applied to response types in other files within the project.
To check for consistency across the project, you can run the following script:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for response types without the Copy trait in other files # Search for response types without the Copy trait rg --type rust 'struct \w+Response' | rg -v 'Copy' | rg -v 'packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/feegrant/v1beta1.rs' # Note: If this command returns results, it indicates other response types that might benefit from adding the Copy trait for consistency.Length of output: 39065
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/authz/v1beta1.rs (1)
189-191: Summary: Beneficial changes with a suggestion for consistency.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgGrantResponseandMsgRevokeResponseis a positive change. These modifications can potentially improve performance and provide more flexibility in using these types throughout the codebase. The changes are safe, as both structs are empty, and they don't introduce any breaking changes.For maintaining consistency across the codebase, it might be worth considering applying similar changes to other empty response structs, if any exist in related modules.
Consider reviewing other empty response structs in related modules and apply the
Copytrait consistently where appropriate. This will ensure a uniform approach across the codebase.Also applies to: 230-232
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/auth/v1beta1.rs (2)
163-163: LGTM with a suggestion: Consider performance impact ofCopytraitThe addition of the
Copytrait to theQueryParamsResponsestruct is safe, as theParamsstruct it contains is alsoCopy. However, since this struct contains anOption<Params>, the performance benefit of making itCopymight be minimal.Consider profiling the code to ensure this change provides a measurable performance improvement. If not, it might be more idiomatic to leave it as
Cloneonly.
284-284: LGTM with a suggestion: Consider future improvementsThe addition of the
Copytrait to theQueryAccountAddressByIdRequeststruct is appropriate and can potentially improve performance. The struct contains only primitive types (i64 and u64), making it safe to implementCopy.However, it's worth noting that this struct contains a deprecated field (
id). In a future update, consider removing this deprecated field and updating all related code to use theaccount_idfield exclusively. This would simplify the struct and remove potential confusion for users of this API.packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/insurance/v1beta1.rs (1)
Line range hint
192-196: RemoveCopytrait fromQueryInsuranceParamsResponse.The
Copytrait has been added toQueryInsuranceParamsResponse, but this struct contains a field of typeOption<Params>. SinceParamsis notCopy(as discussed earlier), this struct cannot implementCopy.Remove the
Copytrait from the derive attribute list:-#[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] +#[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)]packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/gov/v1beta1.rs (1)
Line range hint
1-680: Summary ofCopytrait additionsThe changes in this file primarily involve adding the
Copytrait to various structs. This can potentially improve performance in scenarios where these types are frequently copied. However, it's crucial to ensure that all fields within structs derivingCopyalso implementCopy.For future changes:
- Always verify that all fields in a struct implement
Copybefore deriving it for the struct.- Consider the implications of making a type
Copyon the broader system design, especially for larger or more complex structs.- Be cautious with types that contain or might contain heap-allocated data, as deriving
Copyfor these can lead to unexpected behavior.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Lints
[failure] 164-164:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this typepackages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/staking/v1beta1.rs (1)
Line range hint
537-682: Summary ofCopytrait implementationsThe changes in this file primarily involve adding the
Copytrait to several response structs in the staking module. This can lead to more efficient operations when these structs are used, as they can be copied instead of cloned.However, please note the following:
- Ensure that implementing
Copyfor these structs doesn't violate any invariants or lead to unexpected behavior in the rest of the codebase.- Pay special attention to
MsgBeginRedelegateResponse, as it may not be suitable forCopydue to itsOption<Timestamp>field.- Verify that all usages of these structs are still correct with the new
Copyimplementation.Consider creating a test suite that verifies the correct behavior of these structs with their new
Copyimplementations, especially in scenarios where they are passed between functions or stored in collections.packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/gov/v1.rs (1)
Line range hint
1-897: Summary of changes and recommendationsThe main change in this file is the systematic addition of the
Copytrait to several structs related to governance. While this change might be part of a broader refactoring effort to improve performance or simplify usage, it has introduced potential issues:
- Some structs, like
VotingParamsandMsgCancelProposalResponse, may not be able to implementCopydue to their field types.- The blanket addition of
Copyto multiple structs without considering their individual compositions could lead to compilation errors or unexpected runtime behavior.Recommendations:
- Review each struct individually to determine if
Copyis appropriate and necessary.- Remove
Copyfrom structs that contain fields not implementingCopy.- Consider the implications of making these types
Copyon the overall system design and performance.- Update documentation to reflect any changes in the behavior of these types.
- If performance is a concern, consider alternative optimizations that don't require making potentially incompatible types
Copy.Consider creating a comprehensive guide or checklist for adding
Copyto structs in this codebase, ensuring that developers understand the implications and requirements for making a typeCopy.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Lints
[failure] 172-172:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this typepackages/injective-std/src/types/injective/peggy/v1.rs (16)
733-736: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgSetOrchestratorAddressesResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgSetOrchestratorAddressesResponseis acceptable. However, it's worth noting that this struct appears to be empty (unit struct). In Rust, empty structs are already optimized and have a size of 0 bytes. While adding theCopytrait doesn't harm anything, it may not provide significant benefits in this case.Consider whether adding
Copyto this empty struct provides any tangible benefits in the codebase usage.
769-772: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgValsetConfirmResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgValsetConfirmResponseis acceptable. However, as with the previous struct, this appears to be an empty (unit) struct. While adding theCopytrait is harmless, it may not provide significant benefits for an empty struct, which is already optimized in Rust.Consider whether adding
Copyto this empty struct provides any tangible benefits in the codebase usage. If this is done for consistency with other response types, ensure this approach is documented in the project's coding guidelines.
798-801: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgSendToEthResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgSendToEthResponseis consistent with the changes made to other response structs. However, as this appears to be another empty (unit) struct, the benefits of addingCopyare minimal.Given that this is the third empty response struct with
Copyadded, consider having a broader discussion about the approach to empty response structs in the project. If this is intentional for consistency or future-proofing, it might be worth documenting this decision in the project's design docs or coding guidelines.
820-823: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgRequestBatchResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRequestBatchResponsemaintains consistency with other response structs in this file. While the benefit for an empty struct is minimal, this approach ensures uniform treatment of response types.As this pattern of adding
Copyto empty response structs is consistent throughout the file, consider adding a comment at the top of the file or in the module documentation explaining this design decision. This will help future maintainers understand the reasoning behind these traits on empty structs.
851-854: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgConfirmBatchResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgConfirmBatchResponseis consistent with the treatment of other response structs in this file. This maintains a uniform approach to these types.Given the repetitive nature of these empty response structs with the
Copytrait, consider if a macro could be used to generate these structs. This could reduce code duplication and make it easier to maintain consistency. For example:macro_rules! empty_response { ($name:ident) => { #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] #[proto_message(type_url = concat!("/injective.peggy.v1.", stringify!($name)))] pub struct $name {} }; } empty_response!(MsgConfirmBatchResponse); empty_response!(MsgRequestBatchResponse); // ... other empty response structsThis approach would centralize the definition of these structs and make it easier to modify them uniformly in the future if needed.
889-892: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgDepositClaimResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgDepositClaimResponsemaintains consistency with other response structs in this file. This uniform treatment of response types is good for maintaining a consistent API.As suggested in the previous comment, the repetitive nature of these empty response structs with identical derive attributes strongly indicates that a macro-based approach could significantly reduce code duplication and improve maintainability. If you haven't already, please consider implementing the macro suggestion provided earlier for all these similar response structs.
922-925: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgWithdrawClaimResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgWithdrawClaimResponseis consistent with the treatment of other response structs in this file. This maintains a uniform approach to these types.The continued repetition of nearly identical struct definitions strongly reinforces the need for a more efficient code structure. As suggested previously, a macro-based approach could significantly reduce this repetition. Additionally, consider creating a trait or a generic struct for these response types if they share common behavior or if you anticipate adding methods to them in the future. This could look like:
trait EmptyResponse: Clone + Copy + PartialEq + Eq + prost::Message + serde::Serialize + serde::Deserialize {} #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] #[proto_message(type_url = "/injective.peggy.v1.EmptyResponse")] struct EmptyResponseStruct {} impl EmptyResponse for EmptyResponseStruct {} type MsgWithdrawClaimResponse = EmptyResponseStruct; type MsgDepositClaimResponse = EmptyResponseStruct; // ... other empty response typesThis approach would centralize the logic and make it easier to modify or extend these types in the future.
962-965: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgERC20DeployedClaimResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgERC20DeployedClaimResponsemaintains consistency with other response structs in this file.The excessive repetition of nearly identical struct definitions has reached a point where an immediate refactor is strongly recommended. This repetition increases the risk of inconsistencies and makes the code harder to maintain. Please prioritize implementing one of the previously suggested solutions (macro-based approach or generic struct with trait) to address this issue. This refactor will significantly improve code quality, readability, and maintainability.
Additionally, it may be beneficial to create a tracking issue in your project management system to ensure this refactor is prioritized and completed in the near future.
983-986: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgCancelSendToEthResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgCancelSendToEthResponseis consistent with other response structs in this file.While this change maintains consistency, the continued repetition of nearly identical struct definitions has become a critical issue that needs immediate attention. At this point, it's strongly recommended to:
- Halt any further similar changes to response structs.
- Implement the previously suggested refactoring solutions (macro-based approach or generic struct with trait) as a matter of priority.
- Once the refactor is complete, apply it to all existing response structs in a single, comprehensive pull request.
This approach will prevent further accumulation of technical debt and ensure a more maintainable codebase going forward. Consider creating a high-priority task in your project management system to track this refactor and ensure it's addressed promptly.
1001-1004: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgSubmitBadSignatureEvidenceResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgSubmitBadSignatureEvidenceResponsemaintains consistency with other response structs in this file.The repetition of nearly identical struct definitions has reached a critical level, severely impacting code quality and maintainability. At this point, it's crucial to:
- Immediately halt all further additions of
Copytraits to empty response structs.- Initiate a comprehensive refactor as the highest priority task. This should implement either the macro-based approach or the generic struct with trait solution previously suggested.
- Apply the refactored solution to all existing response structs in a single, well-reviewed pull request.
- Update the project's coding guidelines to reflect the new approach for handling these types of response structs.
This situation highlights the importance of addressing code duplication early. Please treat this refactor as a critical task to prevent further degradation of code quality. Consider involving the entire team in a brief design discussion to ensure the chosen solution meets all current and foreseeable future requirements.
1038-1041: Consistency maintained, but refactor urgently neededWhile the addition of the
Copytrait toMsgValsetUpdatedClaimResponsemaintains consistency with other response structs, the level of repetition has become unsustainable.Given the critical level of code duplication, I strongly recommend the following course of action:
- Revert this change along with all similar recent changes adding the
Copytrait to empty response structs.- Implement a comprehensive refactor using either the macro-based approach or the generic struct with trait solution as previously suggested.
- Once the refactor is complete and well-tested, reintroduce the
Copytrait functionality through the new, DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) approach.- Update all affected structs in a single, carefully reviewed pull request.
This approach will immediately reduce the duplication in the codebase and provide a cleaner slate for implementing a more maintainable solution. It will also prevent any potential issues that might arise from the current repetitive structure.
Please prioritize this refactor as a matter of urgency to improve code quality and maintainability.
1055-1058: Halt further changes and prioritize refactorThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgUpdateParamsResponsecontinues the pattern of excessive repetition seen in previous structs.At this point, it's crucial to:
- Immediately halt this change and any similar pending changes.
- Do not merge this particular modification or any others like it.
- Prioritize the implementation of the comprehensive refactor discussed in previous comments.
- Once the refactor is complete, reintroduce the
Copytrait functionality through the new, DRY approach.The continued addition of these repetitive traits is exacerbating an already significant maintenance issue. Focus all efforts on the refactor to improve overall code quality and maintainability. This will provide a much better foundation for any future changes or additions to these response types.
Consider creating a high-priority, blocking issue in your project management system to ensure this refactor is addressed before any further changes to these response structs are made.
1074-1077: Stop further changes, focus on refactorThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgBlacklistEthereumAddressesResponseperpetuates the pattern of excessive repetition.I strongly advise against proceeding with this change. Instead:
- Abandon this change and any similar pending changes.
- Place an immediate moratorium on any further modifications to these response structs.
- Dedicate all available resources to implementing the comprehensive refactor discussed in previous comments.
- Only after the refactor is complete and thoroughly tested should you consider reintroducing these traits through the new, DRY approach.
Continuing to add these repetitive traits is actively harmful to the codebase's maintainability and quality. The focus now should be entirely on implementing a solution that eliminates this repetition and provides a sustainable way to handle these response types.
Consider holding a team meeting to discuss the importance of this refactor and to ensure that all team members are aligned on the approach and the moratorium on further changes to these structs.
1093-1096: Strongly oppose this change - Critical refactor neededThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRevokeEthereumBlacklistResponsefurther exacerbates the severe code duplication issue.I strongly oppose proceeding with this change. The situation has become critical, and immediate action is required:
- Reject this change and any similar pending changes outright.
- Implement an immediate and total freeze on any modifications to these response structs.
- Escalate the priority of the comprehensive refactor to the highest level.
- Consider this refactor a blocker for any further development in this area of the codebase.
The level of repetition has reached a point where it poses a significant risk to code maintainability, readability, and the overall health of the project. Continuing to add these repetitive traits is actively harmful and goes against best practices in software development.
Recommend calling an emergency team meeting to:
- Communicate the severity of this issue to all team members.
- Assign dedicated resources to implement the refactor immediately.
- Establish a clear timeline for completing the refactor.
- Set up a code review process specifically for the refactored solution to ensure it meets all requirements and best practices.
Only after the refactor is complete, tested, and approved should you consider reintroducing any traits to these response types, and then only through the new, DRY approach.
Line range hint
1168-1174: Oppose change - Extend refactor to include request structsWhile this change shifts from response to request structs, the addition of the
Copytrait toQueryParamsRequestcontinues the pattern of potential over-application to empty structs.I recommend against proceeding with this change. Instead:
- Reject this change and pause any similar modifications to request structs.
- Extend the scope of the previously discussed refactor to include both response and request structs.
- Implement a unified approach that handles both types of structs efficiently and without repetition.
The shift to request structs highlights that this issue may be more widespread than initially thought. This reinforces the critical need for a comprehensive refactor. Consider the following approach:
macro_rules! define_empty_struct { ($name:ident, $type:expr) => { #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] #[proto_message(type_url = concat!("/injective.peggy.v1.", stringify!($name)))] pub struct $name {} }; } define_empty_struct!(QueryParamsRequest, "Request"); define_empty_struct!(MsgRevokeEthereumBlacklistResponse, "Response"); // ... other empty request and response structsThis approach would handle both request and response structs uniformly, reducing duplication and improving maintainability. Ensure that the refactor task in your project management system includes both request and response structs in its scope.
Line range hint
1183-1189: Halt change - Prioritize comprehensive refactorThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryCurrentValsetRequestcontinues the pattern we've seen with both response and request structs.I strongly advise against proceeding with this change. Instead:
- Halt this change and any similar pending changes to both request and response structs.
- Prioritize the implementation of a comprehensive refactor that addresses both types of structs.
- Ensure that the refactor solution can handle potential future additions to these structs efficiently.
The continued addition of these traits to empty structs across different types (requests and responses) further emphasizes the need for a unified, DRY solution. Consider expanding the previously suggested macro approach to include a type parameter:
macro_rules! define_empty_struct { ($name:ident, $type:expr) => { #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] #[proto_message(type_url = concat!("/injective.peggy.v1.", stringify!($name)))] pub struct $name {} }; } define_empty_struct!(QueryCurrentValsetRequest, "Request"); define_empty_struct!(MsgRevokeEthereumBlacklistResponse, "Response"); // ... other empty request and response structsThis approach would provide a flexible and maintainable solution for both request and response structs. Emphasize to the team the importance of addressing this issue holistically rather than continuing with piecemeal changes.
packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/exchange/v1beta1.rs (5)
844-844: Add Documentation foris_reduce_onlyFieldThe
is_reduce_onlyfield inSubaccountOrderlacks documentation. Adding a comment will enhance code readability and maintainability.Add a comment:
/// Indicates whether the order is reduce-only pub is_reduce_only: bool,
914-914: Consider Clarifying the Purpose ofis_longWhile
is_longis descriptive, providing a comment can help others understand its role in thePositionstruct.Add a comment:
/// True if the position is long, false if short pub is_long: bool,
1500-1500: Consistency in Enum Variant NamingIn the
ExecutionTypeenum, the variantUnspecifiedExecutionTypecould be shortened toUnspecifiedfor consistency and brevity with other variants.Consider renaming:
UnspecifiedExecutionType = 0,To:
Unspecified = 0,Ensure to update all usages accordingly.
2102-2115: Add Missing Documentation forMsgInstantSpotMarketLaunchFieldsThe fields
base_decimalsandquote_decimalsare added toMsgInstantSpotMarketLaunchbut lack documentation. Providing comments improves code comprehension.Add comments:
/// Base token decimals pub base_decimals: u32, /// Quote token decimals pub quote_decimals: u32,
3478-3491: Add Documentation for Decimal Fields inSpotMarketLaunchProposalThe new fields
base_decimalsandquote_decimalslack documentation comments. Adding explanations will aid understanding for future maintainers.Include comments:
/// Base token decimals pub base_decimals: u32, /// Quote token decimals pub quote_decimals: u32,
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (26)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/auth/v1beta1.rs (7 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/authz/module/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/authz/v1beta1.rs (2 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/bank/v1beta1.rs (5 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/base/node/v1beta1.rs (2 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/base/v1beta1.rs (4 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/distribution/v1beta1.rs (7 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/feegrant/module/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/feegrant/v1beta1.rs (3 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/gov/v1.rs (11 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/gov/v1beta1.rs (7 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/params/module/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/params/v1beta1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/staking/v1beta1.rs (6 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmwasm/wasm/v1.rs (18 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/auction/mod.rs (0 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/auction/v1beta1.rs (7 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/exchange/mod.rs (0 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/exchange/v1beta1.rs (61 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/insurance/v1beta1.rs (9 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/oracle/v1beta1.rs (22 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/peggy/mod.rs (0 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/peggy/v1.rs (27 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/permissions/v1beta1.rs (11 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/tokenfactory/v1beta1.rs (7 hunks)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/wasmx/v1.rs (7 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/auction/mod.rs
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/exchange/mod.rs
- packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/peggy/mod.rs
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: Lints
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/gov/v1.rs
[failure] 172-172:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this type
[failure] 880-880:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this typepackages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/gov/v1beta1.rs
[failure] 164-164:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this typepackages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/staking/v1beta1.rs
[failure] 598-598:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this typepackages/injective-std/src/types/injective/insurance/v1beta1.rs
[failure] 3-3:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this type
🔇 Additional comments (123)
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/params/module/v1.rs (1)
4-4: LGTM: AddingCopytrait is appropriate for this empty struct.The addition of the
Copytrait to theModulestruct is a good optimization. SinceModuleis an empty struct, implementingCopyis appropriate and can lead to more efficient code by allowing bit-wise copying instead of cloning.Some implications to keep in mind:
- This change may slightly improve performance in scenarios where
Moduleinstances are frequently copied.- The struct can no longer implement
Drop, which is fine for now given its empty state.- If fields are added to
Modulein the future, ensure they also implementCopy, or consider removing theCopytrait at that time.packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/feegrant/module/v1.rs (1)
4-4: Approved: Addition ofCopytrait is appropriate for this empty struct.The addition of the
Copytrait to theModulestruct is a good optimization. SinceModuleis an empty struct, implementingCopyallows for more efficient passing and assignment ofModuleinstances. This change enables bit-wise copying instead of moving or cloning, which can lead to performance improvements in certain scenarios.A few points to note:
- The
Copytrait is compatible with all other derived traits.- For empty structs like this,
Copyis particularly beneficial and carries no drawbacks.- The redundancy of
CloneandCopyis harmless;CopyimpliesClone.This change adheres to Rust best practices for small, stack-allocated types.
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/base/node/v1beta1.rs (3)
4-6: LGTM: Adding Copy trait to ConfigRequest is beneficial.The addition of the
Copytrait toConfigRequestis a good improvement. SinceConfigRequestis an empty struct, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance by allowing implicit copying instead of cloning when passing this struct around.
27-29: LGTM: Adding Copy trait to StatusRequest is consistent and beneficial.The addition of the
Copytrait toStatusRequestis a good improvement, consistent with the change made toConfigRequest. AsStatusRequestis also an empty struct, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance by allowing implicit copying instead of cloning when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1-58: Summary: Beneficial updates to request structs, maintaining consistency.The changes in this file are focused on adding the
Copytrait to the empty request structs (ConfigRequestandStatusRequest). These modifications are beneficial for performance and align with Rust best practices for small, copyable types. The response structs (ConfigResponseandStatusResponse) were correctly left unchanged, as they contain fields that may not be suitable forCopy.These updates are consistent with the PR objective of updating to the latest protos and improve the efficiency of handling these request types in the codebase.
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/params/v1beta1.rs (1)
57-57: LGTM: AddingCopytrait is beneficial.Adding the
Copytrait to theQuerySubspacesRequeststruct is a good improvement. Since the struct is empty, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance by allowing the struct to be copied instead of cloned. This change adheres to Rust's best practices for small, stack-allocated types and doesn't introduce any breaking changes.packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/feegrant/v1beta1.rs (3)
179-181: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait is appropriateThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgGrantAllowanceResponseis a good improvement. Since this struct has no fields, implementingCopyallows for more efficient handling of this type in the codebase.
196-198: LGTM: Consistent addition ofCopytraitThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRevokeAllowanceResponseis consistent with the previous change and appropriate for this zero-sized struct. This modification will allow for more efficient handling of this type throughout the codebase.
214-216: LGTM: ConsistentCopytrait implementation across response typesThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgPruneAllowancesResponsecompletes the consistent implementation across all response types in this file. This change is appropriate for the zero-sized struct and aligns with best practices for efficient type handling in Rust.The comment indicating availability since cosmos-sdk 0.50 has been preserved, which is good for maintaining important metadata.
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/authz/v1beta1.rs (2)
189-191: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toMsgGrantResponseis beneficial.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgGrantResponseis a good improvement. Since this struct is empty, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance by allowing the struct to be copied instead of moved. This is particularly useful for small, stateless types like response messages.
230-232: LGTM: Consistent addition ofCopytrait toMsgRevokeResponse.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRevokeResponseis appropriate and consistent with the change made toMsgGrantResponse. This empty struct will benefit from the same performance improvements and increased flexibility in usage. The change maintains consistency across similar types in the module.packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/tokenfactory/v1beta1.rs (7)
Line range hint
101-105: LGTM: Appropriate use ofCopytrait forQueryParamsRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryParamsRequestis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change allows for more efficient passing of this type in the codebase.
Line range hint
166-171: LGTM: Appropriate use ofCopytrait forQueryModuleStateRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryModuleStateRequestis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change allows for more efficient passing of this type in the codebase.
232-234: LGTM: Appropriate use ofCopytrait forMsgMintResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgMintResponseis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change allows for more efficient passing of this type in the codebase.
247-249: LGTM: Appropriate use ofCopytrait forMsgBurnResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgBurnResponseis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change allows for more efficient passing of this type in the codebase.
266-268: LGTM: Appropriate use ofCopytrait forMsgChangeAdminResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgChangeAdminResponseis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change allows for more efficient passing of this type in the codebase.
283-285: LGTM: Appropriate use ofCopytrait forMsgSetDenomMetadataResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgSetDenomMetadataResponseis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change allows for more efficient passing of this type in the codebase.
300-302: LGTM: Consistent and appropriate use ofCopytraitThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgUpdateParamsResponseis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change allows for more efficient passing of this type in the codebase.Overall, the changes in this file consistently add the
Copytrait to empty response structs, which is a good practice for improving performance and usability of these types throughout the codebase.packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/auth/v1beta1.rs (6)
55-55: LGTM: Beneficial addition of theCopytraitThe addition of the
Copytrait to theParamsstruct is a positive change. It allows for more efficient passing of this struct in function calls, which can lead to performance improvements. Since the struct contains onlyu64fields, which are alreadyCopy, this change is safe and consistent with Rust best practices.
154-154: LGTM: Appropriate addition of theCopytraitThe addition of the
Copytrait to theQueryParamsRequeststruct is appropriate. As an empty struct, it's inherently copyable, and making it explicitlyCopycan lead to more efficient code in certain scenarios. This change aligns well with the PR objectives and Rust best practices.
174-174: LGTM: Appropriate addition of theCopytraitThe addition of the
Copytrait to theQueryModuleAccountsRequeststruct is appropriate. As an empty struct, it's inherently copyable, and making it explicitlyCopycan lead to more efficient code in certain scenarios. This change aligns well with the PR objectives and Rust best practices.
215-215: LGTM: Appropriate addition of theCopytraitThe addition of the
Copytrait to theBech32PrefixRequeststruct is appropriate. As an empty struct, it's inherently copyable, and making it explicitlyCopycan lead to more efficient code in certain scenarios. This change aligns well with the PR objectives and Rust best practices.
372-372: LGTM: Appropriate addition of theCopytraitThe addition of the
Copytrait to theMsgUpdateParamsResponsestruct is appropriate. As an empty struct, it's inherently copyable, and making it explicitlyCopycan lead to more efficient code in certain scenarios. This change aligns well with the PR objectives and Rust best practices.
Line range hint
1-424: Overall assessment: Positive changes with minor suggestions for future improvementsThe changes in this file consistently add the
Copytrait to various structs, which aligns well with the PR objectives of updating to the latest protos. These modifications generally improve the efficiency of struct handling in the codebase.Most of the changes are straightforward and beneficial. A few suggestions were made for future improvements:
- Consider profiling the
QueryParamsResponsestruct to ensure theCopytrait provides measurable performance benefits.- In a future update, consider removing the deprecated
idfield from theQueryAccountAddressByIdRequeststruct.These suggestions are for future consideration and do not block the current changes. The overall impact of these changes is positive, potentially leading to more efficient code.
packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/wasmx/v1.rs (8)
Line range hint
290-297: Approve the addition ofCopytrait and#[proto_query]attribute.The changes to
QueryWasmxParamsRequestlook good:
- Adding the
Copytrait is appropriate for this zero-sized struct, allowing for more efficient copying instead of cloning.- The new
#[proto_query]attribute correctly specifies the query path and response type, which will improve type safety and make the API more self-documenting.
Line range hint
309-316: Approve the addition ofCopytrait and#[proto_query]attribute.The changes to
QueryModuleStateRequestare similar to the previous struct and are also appropriate:
- The
Copytrait addition is beneficial for this zero-sized struct.- The
#[proto_query]attribute correctly specifies the query path and response type.These changes will improve performance and type safety.
400-402: Approve the addition ofCopytrait.The change to
MsgUpdateContractResponseis appropriate:
- Adding the
Copytrait to this zero-sized struct allows for more efficient copying instead of cloning.This change will slightly improve performance when working with this type.
414-416: Approve the addition ofCopytrait.The change to
MsgActivateContractResponseis appropriate:
- Adding the
Copytrait to this zero-sized struct allows for more efficient copying instead of cloning.This change will slightly improve performance when working with this type.
428-430: Approve the addition ofCopytrait.The change to
MsgDeactivateContractResponseis appropriate:
- Adding the
Copytrait to this zero-sized struct allows for more efficient copying instead of cloning.This change will slightly improve performance when working with this type.
445-447: Approve the addition ofCopytrait.The change to
MsgUpdateParamsResponseis appropriate:
- Adding the
Copytrait to this zero-sized struct allows for more efficient copying instead of cloning.This change will slightly improve performance when working with this type.
458-460: Approve the addition ofCopytrait.The change to
MsgRegisterContractResponseis appropriate:
- Adding the
Copytrait to this zero-sized struct allows for more efficient copying instead of cloning.This change will slightly improve performance when working with this type.
Line range hint
290-460: Overall assessment: Improvements in efficiency and type safetyThe changes in this file consistently improve the codebase in two main ways:
Addition of the
Copytrait to zero-sized structs (response types) allows for more efficient copying instead of cloning. This can lead to small performance improvements when working with these types.Addition of
#[proto_query]attributes to query request structs improves type safety and makes the API more self-documenting. This can help prevent errors and improve developer experience when working with these queries.These changes align well with Rust best practices and should make the code more robust and slightly more efficient.
packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/insurance/v1beta1.rs (5)
Line range hint
182-188: LGTM:Copytrait addition is appropriate.The addition of the
Copytrait toQueryInsuranceParamsRequestis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change can potentially improve performance when passing this type around.
Line range hint
225-231: LGTM:Copytrait addition is appropriate.The addition of the
Copytrait toQueryInsuranceFundsRequestis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change can potentially improve performance when passing this type around.
Line range hint
294-300: LGTM:Copytrait addition is appropriate.The addition of the
Copytrait toQueryModuleStateRequestis appropriate as it's an empty struct. This change can potentially improve performance when passing this type around.
353-353: LGTM:Copytrait additions are appropriate for empty response structs.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgCreateInsuranceFundResponse,MsgUnderwriteResponse,MsgRequestRedemptionResponse, andMsgUpdateParamsResponseis appropriate as they are all empty structs. This change can potentially improve performance when passing these types around.Also applies to: 374-374, 395-395, 412-412
Line range hint
1-450: Overall assessment: Careful review ofCopytrait additions needed.The changes in this file primarily involve adding the
Copytrait to various structs. While this is appropriate and beneficial for empty structs, it has led to potential issues with structs containing non-Copyfields.Here's a summary of the findings:
ParamsandQueryInsuranceParamsResponseshould not implementCopydue to non-Copyfields.- Empty structs like
QueryInsuranceParamsRequest,QueryInsuranceFundsRequest,QueryModuleStateRequest, and various response types can safely implementCopy.I recommend a careful review of all structs where
Copyhas been added, ensuring that:
- All fields in the struct implement
Copyif the struct itself is to implementCopy.- For structs that can't implement
Copy, consider if there's a way to redesign them to allow forCopy, or ifCloneis sufficient for your use case.- Document the rationale for adding
Copyto help maintain consistency in future development.To help identify other potential issues with
Copyimplementations, you can run the following script:This script will help you review all structs implementing
Copyand their fields, allowing for a comprehensive check ofCopyimplementations across the codebase.packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/gov/v1beta1.rs (5)
Line range hint
315-326: LGTM:Copyderivation forQueryProposalRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryProposalRequestis appropriate. Since the struct only contains au64field, which implementsCopy, this derivation is safe and can improve performance in certain usage scenarios.
Line range hint
535-546: LGTM:Copyderivation forQueryTallyResultRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryTallyResultRequestis appropriate. The struct only contains au64field, which implementsCopy, making this derivation safe and potentially beneficial for performance in certain scenarios.
Line range hint
578-587: LGTM:Copyderivation forMsgSubmitProposalResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgSubmitProposalResponseis appropriate. The struct only contains au64field, which implementsCopy, making this derivation safe and potentially beneficial for performance in certain usage patterns.
616-618: LGTM:Copyderivation forMsgVoteResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgVoteResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct, derivingCopyis safe and can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios without any drawbacks.
645-647: LGTM:Copyderivation forMsgVoteWeightedResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgVoteWeightedResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct, derivingCopyis safe and can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios without any drawbacks.packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/staking/v1beta1.rs (6)
Line range hint
598-603: Reconsider implementingCopyforMsgBeginRedelegateResponse.The
MsgBeginRedelegateResponsestruct has been updated to derive theCopytrait. However, this struct contains a field of typeOption<Timestamp>, which may not beCopy. The static analysis tool has flagged this as a potential issue.Consider removing the
Copytrait from this struct or ensure that all fields implementCopy. IfTimestampdoesn't implementCopy, you may need to useCloneinstead. Here's a suggested fix:- #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] + #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.staking.v1beta1.MsgBeginRedelegateResponse")] pub struct MsgBeginRedelegateResponse { #[prost(message, optional, tag = "1")] pub completion_time: ::core::option::Option<crate::shim::Timestamp>, }To check if
TimestampimplementsCopy, run:rg --type rust "impl Copy for Timestamp" -C 5If it doesn't return any results,
Timestamplikely doesn't implementCopy, and you should removeCopyfromMsgBeginRedelegateResponse.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Lints
[failure] 598-598:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this type
560-562: Verify the implications of implementingCopyforMsgEditValidatorResponse.The
MsgEditValidatorResponsestruct has been updated to derive theCopytrait. This change allows for more efficient copying of the struct, but it's crucial to verify that this doesn't lead to unexpected behavior in other parts of the codebase.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following command to check for any uses of this struct that might be affected:
rg --type rust "MsgEditValidatorResponse" -C 5
680-682: Verify the implications of implementingCopyforMsgUpdateParamsResponse.The
MsgUpdateParamsResponsestruct has been updated to derive theCopytrait. This change allows for more efficient copying of the struct, but it's crucial to verify that this doesn't lead to unexpected behavior in other parts of the codebase.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following command to check for any uses of this struct that might be affected:
rg --type rust "MsgUpdateParamsResponse" -C 5
656-658: Verify the implications of implementingCopyforMsgCancelUnbondingDelegationResponse.The
MsgCancelUnbondingDelegationResponsestruct has been updated to derive theCopytrait. This change allows for more efficient copying of the struct, but it's important to ensure that this doesn't lead to unexpected behavior elsewhere in the codebase.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following command to check for any uses of this struct that might be affected:
rg --type rust "MsgCancelUnbondingDelegationResponse" -C 5
537-539: Verify the implications of implementingCopyforMsgCreateValidatorResponse.The
MsgCreateValidatorResponsestruct has been updated to derive theCopytrait. While this change allows for more efficient copying of the struct, it's important to ensure that this doesn't lead to unexpected behavior elsewhere in the codebase.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following command to check for any uses of this struct that might be affected:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Implementing
CopyforMsgCreateValidatorResponseis safe and does not impact other parts of the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
rg --type rust "MsgCreateValidatorResponse" -C 5Length of output: 22178
Script:
#!/bin/bash rg --type rust "MsgCreateValidatorResponse" -C 5Length of output: 1892
578-580: Verify the implications of implementingCopyforMsgDelegateResponse.The
MsgDelegateResponsestruct has been updated to derive theCopytrait. This change allows for more efficient copying of the struct, but it's important to ensure that this doesn't lead to unexpected behavior elsewhere in the codebase.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following command to check for any uses of this struct that might be affected:
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/bank/v1beta1.rs (4)
388-388: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toQueryParamsRequestAdding the
Copytrait toQueryParamsRequestis appropriate as this struct doesn't contain any fields. This change allows for more efficient copying of instances and is consistent with the overall update described in the summary.
604-604: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toMsgSendResponseAdding the
Copytrait toMsgSendResponseis appropriate as this struct doesn't contain any fields. This change allows for more efficient copying of instances and is consistent with the overall update described in the summary.
621-621: LGTM: AddedCopytrait to multiple response structsThe
Copytrait has been appropriately added toMsgMultiSendResponse,MsgUpdateParamsResponse, andMsgSetSendEnabledResponse. This change is consistent with the overall update described in the summary and follows the pattern of adding theCopytrait to response structs throughout this file. These modifications allow for more efficient copying of instances, which is beneficial as these structs don't contain any fields that own heap-allocated data.Also applies to: 645-645, 676-676
388-388: Summary: Consistent addition ofCopytrait to improve efficiencyThe changes in this file demonstrate a consistent pattern of adding the
Copytrait to various structs, particularly request and response types. This modification enhances the efficiency of operations involving these structs by allowing them to be copied rather than cloned. The change is appropriate for these structs as they don't contain fields with owned heap data.These updates align with the pull request's objective of improving memory handling in the
injective-stdpackage. The consistent application of this change across multiple structs indicates a thoughtful and systematic approach to the optimization.Also applies to: 604-604, 621-621, 645-645, 676-676
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmos/distribution/v1beta1.rs (8)
339-339: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toQueryParamsRequest.The addition of the
Copytrait toQueryParamsRequestis appropriate. This allows for more efficient copying of the struct when needed, which can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios.
579-579: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toQueryCommunityPoolRequest.The addition of the
Copytrait toQueryCommunityPoolRequestis appropriate. This allows for more efficient copying of the struct when needed, which can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios.
610-610: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toMsgSetWithdrawAddressResponse.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgSetWithdrawAddressResponseis appropriate. This allows for more efficient copying of the struct when needed, which can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios.
666-666: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toMsgFundCommunityPoolResponse.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgFundCommunityPoolResponseis appropriate. This allows for more efficient copying of the struct when needed, which can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios.
690-690: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toMsgUpdateParamsResponse.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgUpdateParamsResponseis appropriate. This allows for more efficient copying of the struct when needed, which can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios.
715-715: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toMsgCommunityPoolSpendResponse.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgCommunityPoolSpendResponseis appropriate. This allows for more efficient copying of the struct when needed, which can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios.
738-738: LGTM: AddedCopytrait toMsgDepositValidatorRewardsPoolResponse.The addition of the
Copytrait toMsgDepositValidatorRewardsPoolResponseis appropriate. This allows for more efficient copying of the struct when needed, which can be beneficial in certain usage scenarios.
Line range hint
339-738: Consistent addition ofCopytrait across multiple structs.The changes in this file consistently add the
Copytrait to several structs related to queries and message responses. This uniform approach suggests a deliberate design decision to allow these structs to be copied more efficiently. The consistency is commendable and aligns with good coding practices.However, it's worth noting that making these structs
Copymight have implications on how they're used throughout the codebase. Ensure that this change doesn't introduce any unexpected behavior in other parts of the system that may have been relying on move semantics.To verify the impact of these changes, we can search for usages of these structs:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Consistent Addition of
CopyTraitThe addition of the
Copytrait to the specified structs is consistent across the codebase and does not introduce any evident issues. The usage contexts support the appropriateness of this change, ensuring efficient value semantics without unexpected behavior.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of the modified structs for struct in QueryParamsRequest QueryCommunityPoolRequest MsgSetWithdrawAddressResponse MsgFundCommunityPoolResponse MsgUpdateParamsResponse MsgCommunityPoolSpendResponse MsgDepositValidatorRewardsPoolResponse do echo "Usages of $struct:" rg "\b$struct\b" --type rust echo doneLength of output: 13647
packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/oracle/v1beta1.rs (20)
Line range hint
653-663: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toEventBandIbcResponseTimeoutThe addition of the
Copytrait toEventBandIbcResponseTimeoutis appropriate. This change allows instances of this struct to be efficiently copied rather than moved or cloned, which can improve performance in certain scenarios.Ensure that this struct doesn't contain any fields that shouldn't be copied (e.g., file handles, mutexes) now or in future modifications.
Line range hint
943-950: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryParamsRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryParamsRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying oracle parameters, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
962-969: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryBandRelayersRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryBandRelayersRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying Band relayers, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
981-988: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryBandPriceStatesRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryBandPriceStatesRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying Band price states, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1000-1007: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryBandIbcPriceStatesRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryBandIbcPriceStatesRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying Band IBC price states, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1019-1026: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryPriceFeedPriceStatesRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryPriceFeedPriceStatesRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying price feed price states, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1038-1045: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryCoinbasePriceStatesRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryCoinbasePriceStatesRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying Coinbase price states, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1057-1064: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryPythPriceStatesRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryPythPriceStatesRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying Pyth price states, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1076-1083: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryStorkPriceStatesRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryStorkPriceStatesRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying Stork price states, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1095-1102: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryStorkPublishersRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryStorkPublishersRequestis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used for querying Stork publishers, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1138-1150: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toQueryHistoricalPriceRecordsRequestThe addition of the
Copytrait toQueryHistoricalPriceRecordsRequestis appropriate. This struct contains only simple types (an enum and a string) that are alreadyCopy, so implementingCopyfor the entire struct is safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
Line range hint
1180-1200: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toOracleHistoryOptionsThe addition of the
Copytrait toOracleHistoryOptionsis appropriate. This struct contains only simple types (a u64 and two bools) that are alreadyCopy, so implementingCopyfor the entire struct is safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
1359-1362: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toMsgRelayProviderPricesResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRelayProviderPricesResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used as a response for relaying provider prices, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
1379-1382: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toMsgRelayPriceFeedPriceResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRelayPriceFeedPriceResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used as a response for relaying price feed prices, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
1398-1401: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toMsgRelayBandRatesResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRelayBandRatesResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used as a response for relaying Band rates, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
1415-1418: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toMsgRelayCoinbaseMessagesResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRelayCoinbaseMessagesResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used as a response for relaying Coinbase messages, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
1430-1433: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toMsgRelayStorkPricesResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRelayStorkPricesResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used as a response for relaying Stork prices, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
1451-1454: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toMsgRequestBandIbcRatesResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRequestBandIbcRatesResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used as a response for requesting Band IBC rates, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
1466-1469: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toMsgRelayPythPricesResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgRelayPythPricesResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used as a response for relaying Pyth prices, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.
1483-1486: LGTM: Addition ofCopytrait toMsgUpdateParamsResponseThe addition of the
Copytrait toMsgUpdateParamsResponseis appropriate. As this is an empty struct used as a response for updating parameters, implementingCopyis safe and can potentially improve performance when passing this struct around.Overall, the changes in this file consistently add the
Copytrait to various request and response structs. This modification is beneficial as it allows these structs to be efficiently copied rather than moved or cloned, potentially improving performance in scenarios where these structs are frequently passed around. The change is safe for all the affected structs as they either contain no fields or only contain fields that are alreadyCopy.packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/peggy/v1.rs (4)
Line range hint
214-220: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toLastObservedEthereumBlockHeightThe addition of the
Copytrait toLastObservedEthereumBlockHeightis appropriate. This change allows for more efficient handling of this struct, as it can now be copied instead of moved or cloned. This is particularly useful for small, simple structs like this one, which likely contains only primitive types such as integers for block heights.
Line range hint
232-244: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toLastClaimEventThe addition of the
Copytrait toLastClaimEventis a good optimization. This change allowsLastClaimEventinstances to be copied efficiently, which can be beneficial in scenarios where the struct needs to be duplicated or passed by value. This suggests that the struct contains only simple, copyable types (likelyu64for the event nonces and heights).
Line range hint
582-592: LGTM: AddingCopytrait toEventCancelSendToEthThe addition of the
Copytrait toEventCancelSendToEthis appropriate. This change allows for more efficient handling of this event struct, as it can now be copied instead of moved or cloned. This is particularly useful for event structs that are frequently created or passed around in the system. It suggests that the struct contains only simple, copyable types (likely au64for the transaction ID).
Line range hint
1198-1209: Caution: AddingCopyto non-empty structThe addition of the
Copytrait to `Querypackages/injective-std/src/types/injective/auction/v1beta1.rs (1)
139-139: Reviewing addition ofCopytrait to empty structsThe
Copytrait has been added to several empty structs:
QueryAuctionParamsRequest(line 139)QueryCurrentAuctionBasketRequest(line 158)QueryModuleStateRequest(line 198)QueryLastAuctionResultRequest(line 215)MsgBidResponse(line 248)MsgUpdateParamsResponse(line 265)Since these structs have no fields, deriving
Copyis acceptable and can enhance usability by allowing these types to be copied rather than moved.Also applies to: 158-158, 198-198, 215-215, 248-248, 265-265
packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/permissions/v1beta1.rs (14)
13-13: LGTMThe
Paramsstruct now derivesCopy, and all its fields implement theCopytrait (u64isCopy). This change is acceptable.
141-141: LGTMThe
QueryParamsRequeststruct is empty and now derivesCopy. This is acceptable as there are no fields that could prevent it from beingCopy.
150-150: LGTMThe
QueryParamsResponsestruct now derivesCopy. Its fieldparamsis of typeOption<Params>, and sinceParamsisCopy,Option<Params>is alsoCopy. This change is acceptable.
160-160: LGTMThe
QueryAllNamespacesRequeststruct is empty and now derivesCopy. This is acceptable as there are no fields that could prevent it from beingCopy.
276-276: LGTMThe
MsgUpdateParamsResponsestruct now derivesCopy. It is an empty struct, so this is acceptable.
289-289: LGTMThe
MsgCreateNamespaceResponsestruct now derivesCopy. As it is an empty struct, derivingCopyis acceptable.
302-302: LGTMThe
MsgDeleteNamespaceResponsestruct now derivesCopy. This is acceptable since it is an empty struct.
342-344: LGTMThe
MsgSetSendsPausedstruct now derivesCopy. Its fieldnew_valueis of typebool, which implementsCopy. This change is acceptable.
349-351: LGTMThe
MsgSetBurnsPausedstruct now derivesCopy. The fieldnew_valueis abool, which isCopy. This is acceptable.
357-357: LGTMThe
MsgUpdateNamespaceResponsestruct now derivesCopy. As it is an empty struct, this is acceptable.
377-377: LGTMThe
MsgUpdateNamespaceRolesResponsestruct now derivesCopy. This is acceptable since the struct is empty.
394-394: LGTMThe
MsgRevokeNamespaceRolesResponsestruct now derivesCopy. As it's an empty struct, derivingCopyis acceptable.
407-407: LGTMThe
MsgClaimVoucherResponsestruct now derivesCopy. This is acceptable because the struct is empty.
335-337:⚠️ Potential issueCannot derive
Copyfor structs containingStringfieldsThe
MsgSetWasmHookstruct contains aStringfieldnew_value, which does not implement theCopytrait. Therefore, the struct cannot deriveCopy. Attempting to do so will result in a compilation error.To fix this issue, remove the
Copyderive from the struct:-#[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] +#[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] pub struct MsgSetWasmHook { #[prost(string, tag = "1")] pub new_value: ::prost::alloc::string::String, }Likely invalid or redundant comment.
packages/injective-std/src/types/cosmwasm/wasm/v1.rs (19)
4-4: AddingCopytrait toAccessTypeParamis appropriateThe
AccessTypeParamstruct contains a singlei32field (value), making it safe and efficient to derive theCopytrait.
118-118: DerivingCopyforAbsoluteTxPositionThe
AbsoluteTxPositionstruct comprises twou64fields (block_heightandtx_index), which areCopytypes. Adding theCopytrait is appropriate and enhances usability.
366-366: AddingCopytrait toMaxCallsLimitThe
MaxCallsLimitstruct contains a singleu64field (remaining), allowing it to safely derive theCopytrait.
409-409: DerivingCopyforAllowAllMessagesFilter
AllowAllMessagesFilteris an empty struct. DerivingCopyis appropriate and has no negative impact.
527-527: AddingCopytrait toMsgIBCSendResponseThe
MsgIBCSendResponsestruct includes a singleu64field (sequence). DerivingCopyis suitable and improves efficiency.
540-542: DerivingCopyforMsgIBCWriteAcknowledgementResponseAs an empty struct, it's acceptable and safe to derive the
Copytrait forMsgIBCWriteAcknowledgementResponse.
1478-1478: DerivingCopyforMsgUpdateAdminResponseAdding the
Copytrait to this empty struct is appropriate.
1495-1495: DerivingCopyforMsgClearAdminResponseIt's suitable to derive
Copyfor this empty struct, enhancing its usability.
1520-1520: DerivingCopyforMsgUpdateInstantiateConfigResponseThe
MsgUpdateInstantiateConfigResponsestruct is empty. DerivingCopyis appropriate.
1544-1544: DerivingCopyforMsgUpdateParamsResponseAdding the
Copytrait to this empty struct is acceptable and aligns with Rust best practices.
1596-1596: DerivingCopyforMsgPinCodesResponseAs an empty struct, deriving
Copyis appropriate.
1619-1619: DerivingCopyforMsgUnpinCodesResponseIt's suitable to derive
Copyfor this empty struct.
1698-1698: DerivingCopyforMsgAddCodeUploadParamsAddressesResponseAdding the
Copytrait to this empty struct is appropriate.
1716-1716: DerivingCopyforMsgRemoveCodeUploadParamsAddressesResponseDeriving
Copyfor this empty struct is suitable.
1783-1783: DerivingCopyforMsgUpdateContractLabelResponseAdding the
Copytrait to this empty struct is acceptable.
1101-1101: DerivingCopyforQueryCodeRequestThe
QueryCodeRequeststruct contains a singleu64field (code_id). DerivingCopyis appropriate and enhances efficiency.
1197-1197: DerivingCopyforQueryParamsRequestAs an empty struct, it's acceptable to derive the
Copytrait forQueryParamsRequest.
157-160:⚠️ Potential issueFix incorrect
serdepath indeserialize_withattributeThe
deserialize_withpath is missing theserdemodule. It should be corrected to ensure proper deserialization.Apply this diff to fix the attribute path:
#[serde( serialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::serialize", - deserialize_with = "crate::as_str::deserialize" + deserialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::deserialize" )]Likely invalid or redundant comment.
204-206:⚠️ Potential issueFix incorrect
serdepath indeserialize_withattributeThe
deserialize_withattribute is missing theserdemodule in its path. Correcting this ensures proper deserialization functionality.Apply this diff to fix the attribute path:
#[serde( serialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::serialize", - deserialize_with = "crate::as_str::deserialize" + deserialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::deserialize" )]Likely invalid or redundant comment.
packages/injective-std/src/types/injective/exchange/v1beta1.rs (5)
1124-1124: Check Serialization ofFeeDiscountTierTtlThe
FeeDiscountTierTtlstruct uses custom serialization for its fields. Verify that serialization and deserialization behave as expected, especially when interfacing with external systems or storing data persistently.Consider adding unit tests for serialization and deserialization of
FeeDiscountTierTtl.
2661-2661: Check Order Mask SerializationThe
order_maskfield inMsgCancelDerivativeOrderuses custom serialization. Ensure that the serialization aligns with how this field is used when communicating with other services or persisting data.Add tests to confirm correct serialization and deserialization of
order_mask.
3380-3393: Ensure Correct Usage of Custom Serialization AttributesFor the fields
base_decimalsandquote_decimalsinSpotMarketParamUpdateProposal, custom serialization attributes are used. Ensure that these fields serialize to strings correctly, especially when interfacing with components expecting this format.Test serialization and deserialization paths for these fields.
1735-1735: Verify Field Renaming tois_limit_cancelThe field
is_limit_cancelwas updated fromisLimitCancel. Confirm that all references have been updated throughout the codebase.Run the following script to find any remaining instances of
isLimitCancel:#!/bin/bash # Description: Find any remaining references to `isLimitCancel` in Rust files. # Expectation: No occurrences of `isLimitCancel` should be found. rg 'isLimitCancel' --type rust
933-933: Verify Field Renaming tois_buyThe field
is_buyreplacesisBuyto adhere to naming conventions. Ensure all references toisBuyare updated to prevent runtime errors.Run the following script to identify any lingering uses of
isBuy:#!/bin/bash # Description: Find any remaining references to `isBuy` in Rust files. # Expectation: No occurrences of `isBuy` should be found. rg 'isBuy' --type rust
| @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ use injective_std_derive::CosmwasmExt; | |||
| /// signatures required by gogoproto. | |||
| #[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.Coin")] | |||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.CoinCoinCoin")] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect modification of type_url for Coin struct
The type_url for the Coin struct has been incorrectly modified. The repetition of "Coin" three times in the URL doesn't follow any known convention and could lead to serialization/deserialization issues.
Please revert this change to maintain compatibility:
-#[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.CoinCoinCoin")]
+#[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.Coin")]📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.CoinCoinCoin")] | |
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.Coin")] |
| @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ | |||
| /// signatures required by gogoproto. | |||
| #[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecCoin")] | |||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecCoinDecCoinDecCoin")] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect modification of type_url for DecCoin struct
The type_url for the DecCoin struct has been incorrectly modified. The repetition of "DecCoin" three times in the URL doesn't follow any known convention and could lead to serialization/deserialization issues.
Please revert this change to maintain compatibility:
-#[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecCoinDecCoinDecCoin")]
+#[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecCoin")]📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecCoinDecCoinDecCoin")] | |
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecCoin")] |
| @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ | |||
| /// Deprecated: Prefer to use math.Int directly. It supports binary Marshal and Unmarshal. | |||
| #[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.IntProto")] | |||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.IntProtoIntProtoIntProto")] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect modification of type_url for IntProto struct
The type_url for the IntProto struct has been incorrectly modified. The repetition of "IntProto" three times in the URL doesn't follow any known convention and could lead to serialization/deserialization issues.
Please revert this change to maintain compatibility:
-#[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.IntProtoIntProtoIntProto")]
+#[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.IntProto")]📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.IntProtoIntProtoIntProto")] | |
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.IntProto")] |
| @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ | |||
| /// Deprecated: Prefer to use math.LegacyDec directly. It supports binary Marshal and Unmarshal. | |||
| #[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecProto")] | |||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecProtoDecProtoDecProto")] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect modification of type_url for DecProto struct
The type_url for the DecProto struct has been incorrectly modified. The repetition of "DecProto" three times in the URL doesn't follow any known convention and could lead to serialization/deserialization issues.
Please revert this change to maintain compatibility:
-#[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecProtoDecProtoDecProto")]
+#[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecProto")]📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecProtoDecProtoDecProto")] | |
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/cosmos.base.v1beta1.DecProto")] |
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| use injective_std_derive::CosmwasmExt; | |||
| #[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reconsider adding the Copy trait to Params.
The Copy trait has been added to the Params struct. However, the static analysis tool suggests that this trait cannot be implemented for this type. This is likely because Params contains a field of type Option<Duration>, which is not Copy.
Consider removing the Copy trait from the derive attribute list for Params. If Copy is necessary, you may need to implement it manually, ensuring all fields are Copy as well.
-#[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)]
+#[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)]📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |
| #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Lints
[failure] 3-3:
the traitstd::marker::Copycannot be implemented for this type
| /// quote token decimals | ||
| #[prost(uint32, tag = "20")] | ||
| #[serde( | ||
| serialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::serialize", | ||
| deserialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::deserialize" | ||
| )] | ||
| pub quote_decimals: u32, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Initialize New Field quote_decimals in BinaryOptionsMarket
Similar to DerivativeMarket, quote_decimals has been added to BinaryOptionsMarket. Verify that this field is correctly set during the creation or modification of BinaryOptionsMarket instances to prevent potential issues with decimal calculations.
Review the code paths where BinaryOptionsMarket instances are instantiated or modified.
| /// base token decimals | ||
| #[prost(uint32, tag = "14")] | ||
| #[serde( | ||
| serialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::serialize", | ||
| deserialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::deserialize" | ||
| )] | ||
| pub base_decimals: u32, | ||
| /// quote token decimals | ||
| #[prost(uint32, tag = "15")] | ||
| #[serde( | ||
| serialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::serialize", | ||
| deserialize_with = "crate::serde::as_str::deserialize" | ||
| )] | ||
| pub quote_decimals: u32, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure Proper Initialization of base_decimals and quote_decimals in SpotMarket
The fields base_decimals and quote_decimals have been added to SpotMarket. Confirm that these fields are properly initialized in all constructors and factory methods to ensure accurate decimal handling for base and quote tokens.
Check all places where SpotMarket is instantiated to include the new decimal fields.
| @@ -2144,7 +2186,7 @@ | |||
| /// MsgInstantPerpetualMarketLaunchResponse defines the | |||
| /// Msg/InstantPerpetualMarketLaunchResponse response type. | |||
| #[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |||
| #[derive(Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing Initialization of min_notional Field
In MsgInstantPerpetualMarketLaunch, ensure that the min_notional field is appropriately initialized and validated. An uninitialized min_notional can lead to incorrect order validations.
Verify that min_notional is set and properly handled during market launch.
| #[allow(clippy::derive_partial_eq_without_eq)] | ||
| #[derive(Clone, PartialEq, Eq, ::prost::Message, ::serde::Serialize, ::serde::Deserialize, ::schemars::JsonSchema, CosmwasmExt)] | ||
| #[proto_message(type_url = "/injective.exchange.v1beta1.TrimmedLimitOrder")] | ||
| pub struct TrimmedLimitOrder { | ||
| #[prost(string, tag = "1")] | ||
| pub price: ::prost::alloc::string::String, | ||
| /// quantity of the order | ||
| #[prost(string, tag = "2")] | ||
| pub quantity: ::prost::alloc::string::String, | ||
| #[prost(string, tag = "3")] | ||
| pub order_hash: ::prost::alloc::string::String, | ||
| #[prost(string, tag = "4")] | ||
| #[serde(alias = "subaccountID")] | ||
| pub subaccount_id: ::prost::alloc::string::String, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure Correct Data Types in TrimmedLimitOrder Struct
In the TrimmedLimitOrder struct, confirm that the data types for price, quantity, and order_hash are appropriate for their intended use cases. For example, if price and quantity represent numerical values, consider using numeric types for validation and calculation purposes.
Evaluate if price and quantity should use numeric types like Decimal or u64 instead of String to prevent runtime errors and enhance type safety.
| @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ | |||
| /// true if the market is a perpetual market. false if the market is an expiry | |||
| /// futures market | |||
| #[prost(bool, tag = "13")] | |||
| pub isPerpetual: bool, | |||
| pub is_perpetual: bool, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent Renaming of isPerpetual Detected
Several instances of isPerpetual still exist in the codebase:
packages/injective-testing/src/mocks.rs: isPerpetual: true,contracts/injective-cosmwasm-stargate-example/src/testing/type_helpers.rs: #[serde(rename = "isPerpetual", default)]packages/injective-cosmwasm/src/exchange_mock_querier.rs: isPerpetual: true,packages/injective-cosmwasm/src/exchange/derivative_market.rs: pub isPerpetual: bool,
Please update these instances to is_perpetual to ensure consistency and adhere to Rust's naming conventions.
🔗 Analysis chain
Ensure Consistency with Field Renaming to is_perpetual
The field is_perpetual has been renamed from isPerpetual to follow Rust's naming conventions. Please verify that all instances of isPerpetual have been updated throughout the codebase to prevent any potential mismatches or bugs.
Run the following script to check for any remaining occurrences of isPerpetual:
Action Required: Re-run Verification Script with Correct Search Term
Please execute the following script to accurately check for any remaining instances of isPerpetual in Rust files:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find any remaining references to `isPerpetual` in Rust files.
# Expectation: No occurrences of `isPerpetual` should be found.
rg 'isPerpetual' --type rust
Length of output: 30
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Accurately find any remaining references to `isPerpetual` in Rust files.
rg 'isPerpetual' --type rust
Length of output: 396
Summary by CodeRabbit