feat: add concurrency tests #109
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes across multiple files. The Changes
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 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: 5
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.gitignore(1 hunks)Makefile(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/counter/Counter.go(2 hunks)x/evm/contracts/counter/Counter.sol(1 hunks)x/evm/keeper/context_test.go(1 hunks)x/evm/keeper/fuzz_test.go(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .gitignore
🔇 Additional comments (5)
x/evm/contracts/counter/Counter.sol (1)
23-23: LGTM! Visibility change is appropriate
Changing increase() from external to public is necessary to support internal calls from increase_for_fuzz().
x/evm/keeper/context_test.go (1)
121-121: More precise assertion for event logs
The assertion has been strengthened to expect exactly 2 logs instead of just checking for non-empty logs. This is a good improvement in test precision.
Let's verify the expected number of logs by checking the contract implementation:
x/evm/contracts/counter/Counter.go (3)
34-35: LGTM: ABI and binary updates for new fuzz testing method.
The ABI and binary updates correctly reflect the addition of the new increase_for_fuzz method.
393-413: LGTM: New IncreaseForFuzz method implementations.
The implementations follow the standard Go binding patterns and are properly documented.
393-413: Verify concurrent safety of the new method.
Since this PR focuses on concurrency tests, please ensure:
- The method is thread-safe when called concurrently
- Race conditions are properly handled
- Test coverage includes concurrent access scenarios
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the concurrent testing implementation for this contract.
Let me try one more search to find the contract implementation and its tests.
The method is properly tested for concurrent safety ✅
The fuzz test implementation shows proper concurrent safety measures:
- Uses
sync.WaitGroupfor coordinating concurrent operations - Employs
atomic.Pointerfor thread-safe bloom filter updates - Each goroutine operates on its own cached context (
CacheContext()) - Multiple threads execute the
increase_for_fuzzmethod simultaneously
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for race condition tests and concurrent access patterns
# Search for race condition tests
echo "Searching for race condition tests..."
rg -l "race|concurrent|sync|atomic" --type go
# Search for sync/atomic usage in implementation
echo "Checking for synchronization mechanisms..."
rg -l "sync\.|atomic\." --type go
# Look for test files with parallel test execution
echo "Checking for parallel test execution..."
rg -l "t.Parallel|go test.*-race" --type go
Length of output: 1907
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the fuzz test implementation and concurrent testing patterns
echo "Checking fuzz test implementation..."
rg -A 10 "IncreaseForFuzz" x/evm/keeper/fuzz_test.go
# Look for mutex/atomic operations in the contract implementation
echo "Checking contract state handling..."
rg -A 10 "Counter" x/evm/state/statedb.go
# Check the keeper implementation for synchronization
echo "Examining keeper implementation..."
rg -A 10 "Counter" x/evm/keeper/keeper.go
Length of output: 379
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the contract implementation and tests
echo "Looking for Counter contract files..."
fd -t f Counter
# Check the content of any test files
echo "Checking test implementations..."
rg -C 10 "func.*Test.*Counter" --type go
# Look for concurrent test patterns in the test files
echo "Looking for concurrent test patterns..."
rg -C 10 "go func|sync\." x/evm/keeper/fuzz_test.go
Length of output: 1300
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #109 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.17% 40.58% +12.41%
===========================================
Files 126 106 -20
Lines 14275 9909 -4366
===========================================
Hits 4022 4022
+ Misses 9680 5314 -4366
Partials 573 573
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
x/evm/keeper/precompiles.go (1)
47-47: Excellent improvement for concurrent safetyThe use of
slices.Cloneis a crucial improvement that prevents potential race conditions in concurrent scenarios by ensuring each caller gets their own copy of the precompile addresses instead of potentially modifying a shared slice.This change aligns well with the PR's objective of improving concurrent testing support. The defensive copying pattern used here is a best practice for concurrent systems.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
x/evm/keeper/precompiles.go(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
x/evm/keeper/precompiles.go (2)
4-5: LGTM: Good use of standard library
The addition of the slices package is appropriate for safe slice operations.
47-47: Verify concurrent usage patterns
Let's ensure this concurrent-safe pattern is consistently applied across related code.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the concurrent usage patterns.
Let me check one final aspect to understand the precompiles method's usage context.
The concurrent-safe pattern is correctly implemented and no issues found
The use of slices.Clone() with vm.ActivePrecompiles() is appropriate here as:
- The
precompileAddrsmethod is used in EVM state preparation during calls/creates - The method creates a new slice copy before appending, preventing any concurrent modification issues
- The only concurrent usage is in fuzz tests, which properly handles concurrency through goroutines and WaitGroups
- The method is consistently used across all EVM operations (StaticCall, Call, Create)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential concurrent access patterns to precompileAddrs
# and similar slice operations that might need the same treatment
# Look for test files that might use this method concurrently
rg -l "precompileAddrs.*go.*func"
# Look for similar patterns that might need concurrent safety
ast-grep --pattern 'append($_, vm.ActivePrecompiles($_))'
# Look for concurrent test patterns
rg -l "parallel|go func|sync\." --type go
Length of output: 603
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the specific method implementation and its usage
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_($_, $_, $_) []common.Address {
$$$
append($_, vm.ActivePrecompiles($_))
$$$
}'
# Look for test files specifically using this precompiles-related code
rg -l "TestPrecompile.*parallel" --type go
# Check for any concurrent test setup in the keeper tests
rg "t.Parallel\(\)" x/evm/keeper/
# Look for any sync.* usage near precompiles
rg -B 2 -A 2 "sync\." x/evm/keeper/
Length of output: 507
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual implementation and usage of precompileAddrs
rg -A 5 "precompileAddrs" x/evm/keeper/
# Look for any other slice operations with vm.ActivePrecompiles
rg "vm\.ActivePrecompiles" x/evm/keeper/
# Check the fuzz test implementation for concurrent access patterns
cat x/evm/keeper/fuzz_test.go
Length of output: 4434
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.codecov.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.codecov.yml (1)
38-39: LGTM! Appropriate ignore patterns for contract files.
The new ignore patterns correctly exclude Solidity contract files from coverage calculations, which is appropriate since we measure coverage of the test code rather than the contract implementations.
Description
Closes: #XXXX
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores
testdatato.gitignoreto prevent tracking of test-related files..codecov.ymlfor more specific ignored paths.