-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 233
feat: implement multi-account support with round-robin address selection #2785
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
Conversation
…ion for DA submissions
|
The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow CI and Release / buf-check (pull_request).
|
|
Claude finished @randygrok's task —— View job Code Review Complete ✅I've completed a comprehensive code review of the multi-account DA submission feature. Overall, this is a well-designed and well-implemented feature that addresses a real pain point with sequence mismatches in high-throughput DA submissions. The code quality is high, with excellent test coverage and clear documentation. SummaryThis PR introduces multi-account support with round-robin address selection for DA submissions to prevent sequence/nonce conflicts when submitting multiple transactions concurrently to Cosmos SDK-based DA layers like Celestia. The implementation is solid with good separation of concerns, thorough testing, and proper thread-safety. Strengths:
Areas for improvement: See detailed feedback below. Detailed Findings1. Code Quality & Architecture ⭐ ExcellentStrengths:
Observations:
Minor suggestions:
2. Error Handling & Resilience ✅ GoodStrengths:
Critical Issue Found (Already Addressed): Suggestions:
3. Security 🔒 GoodStrengths:
Observations:
Recommendations:
4. Performance & Resource Efficiency ⚡ ExcellentStrengths:
Concurrency test validates scalability:
Minor optimization opportunity:
5. Testing & Reliability ✅ ExcellentStrengths:
Test quality highlights:
Coverage:
Suggestions:
6. Documentation & Developer Experience 📚 GoodStrengths:
Documentation updates:
Suggestions for improvement:
Specific Code IssuesIssue 1: Potential confusion with NoOpSelector behaviorLocation: Description: The interface comment says "Implementations may return empty string (NoOpSelector) or panic (RoundRobinSelector with no addresses)" but doesn't explain when each behavior is appropriate. Recommendation: Clarify the contract: // AddressSelector defines the interface for selecting a signing address from a list.
type AddressSelector interface {
// Next returns the next address to use for signing.
// Returns empty string when no addresses are configured (NoOpSelector),
// indicating the DA layer should use its default signer.
// Implementations MUST be safe for concurrent access.
Next() string
}Issue 2: Missing defensive check in DASubmitter initializationLocation: Description: If Recommendation: Add validation: // Create address selector based on configuration
var addressSelector pkgda.AddressSelector
if len(config.DA.SigningAddresses) > 0 {
// Filter out empty addresses
validAddresses := make([]string, 0, len(config.DA.SigningAddresses))
for _, addr := range config.DA.SigningAddresses {
if addr != "" {
validAddresses = append(validAddresses, addr)
}
}
if len(validAddresses) > 0 {
addressSelector = pkgda.NewRoundRobinSelector(validAddresses)
daSubmitterLogger.Info().
Int("num_addresses", len(validAddresses)).
Msg("initialized round-robin address selector for multi-account DA submissions")
} else {
addressSelector = pkgda.NewNoOpSelector()
}
} else {
addressSelector = pkgda.NewNoOpSelector()
}Issue 3: Test naming inconsistencyLocation: Description: Test function Wait, checking again... Actually, I see this test is correctly in Config Flag Documentation IssueLocation: Issue: Review comment from @tac0turtle suggests the flag format should be: However, looking at the flag definition in cmd.Flags().StringSlice(FlagDASigningAddresses, def.DA.SigningAddresses, "Comma-separated list...")Recommendation: The docs should show the comma-separated format: Or if using multiple flags: Review Comments AssessmentI reviewed the existing PR comments and here's my assessment:
Final RecommendationsHigh Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ConclusionThis is a high-quality implementation that solves a real problem. The code is clean, well-tested, and properly documented. The main suggestion is to enhance documentation with examples and migration guidance. Recommendation: ✅ Approve with minor documentation improvements suggested above. The feature is production-ready and the existing test coverage provides good confidence in its correctness. The round-robin strategy is appropriate for the use case, and the implementation is efficient and thread-safe. |
Summary of ChangesHello @randygrok, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request significantly enhances the Data Availability (DA) submission process by introducing multi-account support with a round-robin address selection strategy. This feature is crucial for maintaining stability and efficiency when interacting with high-throughput DA layers, such as Celestia, by mitigating common issues like sequence mismatches that arise from concurrent transactions. The changes involve new configuration options, a flexible address selection mechanism, and dynamic merging of signing addresses into submission parameters, ensuring a robust and scalable DA submission pipeline. Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request introduces support for multiple DA signing accounts, which are rotated in a round-robin fashion. This is a useful feature to prevent sequence number issues with high-throughput submissions to Cosmos SDK-based DA layers.
The implementation includes:
- A new configuration option
da.signing_addresses. - An
AddressSelectorinterface withRoundRobinSelectorandNoOpSelectorimplementations. - Integration into the
DASubmitterto select an address for each submission and merge it into the submission options. - Comprehensive unit tests for the new components and updated documentation.
The overall approach is solid. I've found one critical issue that could lead to a panic and a couple of related improvements in the tests and comments. My feedback is focused on fixing this potential panic and improving the robustness of the new mergeSubmitOptions function.
Co-authored-by: Marko <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marko <[email protected]>
…s function test: add case for merging with null JSON base options
Co-authored-by: Marko <[email protected]>
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2785 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 64.69% 64.72% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 80 81 +1
Lines 7177 7224 +47
==========================================
+ Hits 4643 4676 +33
- Misses 1999 2009 +10
- Partials 535 539 +4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
tac0turtle
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
utACK, we should test this on a testnet to see how it changes the failures.
Overview
Closes #2627