refactor: move starcoin-force-upgrade to vm #4236
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily focus on updating the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
vm/force-upgrade/Cargo.toml (2)
31-31: LGTM! Consider using workspace version convention.The addition of the
hexcrate is appropriate for handling hexadecimal data. However, to maintain consistency with other dependencies and leverage workspace-level version management, consider using the workspace convention for version specification.You might want to change the line to:
hex = { workspace = true }This assumes that the
hexcrate version is defined in the workspace's rootCargo.toml. If it's not, you'll need to add it there first.
37-38: LGTM! Please add documentation for the new feature.The addition of the
force-deployfeature is appropriate. However, to improve maintainability and ease of use, it would be beneficial to add documentation explaining the purpose and usage of this feature.Consider adding a comment above the feature definition, like this:
[features] # Enables force deployment functionality. Use this feature when... force-deploy = []Replace the ellipsis with a brief explanation of when and why this feature should be used.
vm/force-upgrade/src/lib.rs (1)
Line range hint
1-70: Summary of changes and implicationsThe addition of the
force_upgrade_managementmodule under theforce-deployfeature flag appears to be a well-structured change that aligns with the PR objectives. The existingForceUpgradefunctionality remains intact, which is consistent with the refactoring nature of this PR.Key points:
- The new module is conditionally compiled, allowing for flexible deployment.
- Existing functionality is preserved, maintaining backward compatibility.
- The change promotes better code organization by potentially moving related functionality into a dedicated module.
To ensure the success of this refactoring:
- Verify that the new module's implementation complements the existing
ForceUpgradestruct.- Ensure that any callers of the existing
ForceUpgradefunctionality are updated if necessary.- Consider adding tests for the new module to maintain code quality and prevent regressions.
As the codebase evolves, consider creating a comprehensive upgrade management system that encapsulates both force upgrades and other types of upgrades. This could improve maintainability and scalability in the long run.
chain/open-block/src/lib.rs (1)
Issues Found: Direct Setting of stdlib Version May Affect Multiple Components
The direct update of the stdlib version to 12 has implications across several parts of the codebase. Specifically:
Usage of
struct Version:
vm/vm-runtime/src/parallel_executor/storage_wrapper.rsvm/types/src/on_chain_config/version.rsvm/e2e-tests/src/versioning.rsVersion Checks:
vm/types/src/genesis_config.rsvm/transaction-builder-generator/src/generate.rsvm/move-package-manager/src/release.rsvm/compiler/src/bytecode_transpose.rsflexidag/src/blockdag.rscommons/forkable-jellyfish-merkle/src/mock_tree_store.rsblock-relayer/src/block_relayer.rsRecommendations:
- Review Affected Files: Ensure that all components relying on the stdlib version are compatible with version 12.
- Implement Migration Paths: Where version-dependent logic exists, verify that it accommodates the new version without introducing regressions.
- Use Constants or Configuration: Instead of hardcoding the version number, consider defining it in a centralized configuration to simplify future updates.
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
339-352: Consider the implications of directly setting stdlib version to 12The addition of code to update the stdlib version to 12 directly after applying the write set is a significant change. While the comment provides clarity on the purpose, there are a few points to consider:
- Hardcoding the version number might make future updates more difficult. Consider using a constant or configuration value for the version number.
- This change might have implications for version compatibility and migration processes. Ensure that all necessary migration steps are in place for this version update.
- The conditional compilation (
#[cfg(feature = "force-deploy")]) ensures this code only runs when the feature is enabled, but it's important to document this requirement clearly in the project documentation.To verify the impact of this change, please run the following script:
This script will help identify other parts of the codebase that might be affected by this direct version update.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usage of Version struct and potential version-dependent code # Search for Version struct usage echo "Searching for Version struct usage:" rg --type rust 'struct Version' # Search for potential version checks in the codebase echo "Searching for potential version checks:" rg --type rust 'version.*=='Length of output: 1501
chain/src/chain.rs (1)
Line range hint
1021-1034: Conditional block validation for force-deploy feature.A new conditional block has been added to handle transaction validation when the
force-deployfeature is enabled. This change allows for an additional transaction when the block number matches the force upgrade block number.While this change accommodates the force upgrade functionality, it introduces complexity to the block validation process. Consider the following suggestions:
- Add a comment explaining the rationale behind allowing an extra transaction during force upgrade.
- Implement additional logging to track when this condition is met, which could be helpful for debugging and monitoring.
- Consider adding an assertion or error message to ensure that the extra transaction is indeed the force upgrade transaction.
Here's a suggested implementation with added logging and assertions:
#[cfg(feature = "force-deploy")] let valid_txn_num = if header.number() == get_force_upgrade_block_number(chain_id) { if executed_data.with_extra_txn { debug_assert!( vec_transaction_info.len() == transactions.len() + 1, "Force upgrade block should have exactly one extra transaction" ); log::info!("Force upgrade block detected with an extra transaction"); true } else { log::warn!("Force upgrade block detected but no extra transaction found"); false } } else { vec_transaction_info.len() == transactions.len() };executor/src/block_executor.rs (5)
Line range hint
103-107: Consider rephrasing the comment for clarity and professionalism.The comment
// !!! commit suicide if any error or exception happens !!!may be unprofessional or unclear. Consider rephrasing it to convey the intent more appropriately.Suggested change:
- // !!! commit suicide if any error or exception happens !!! + // Panic if any error or exception occurs; block execution must not continue
Line range hint
107-110: Avoid usingexpect; handle errors more gracefully.Using
.expect("extra txn must be executed successfully")will cause a panic if an error occurs. It's advisable to handle errors properly to prevent unintended panics in production code.Suggested change:
- execute_extra_txn(chain_state, extra_txn, vm_metrics, &mut executed_data) - .expect("extra txn must be executed successfully"); + execute_extra_txn(chain_state, extra_txn, vm_metrics, &mut executed_data) + .map_err(BlockExecutorError::BlockChainStateErr)?;
Line range hint
123-129: Consider making the stdlib version check more flexible.The function
create_force_upgrade_extra_txnchecks for a specificStdlibVersion::Version(11). To improve maintainability, consider parameterizing the target version or making the check more adaptable to future versions.Suggested change:
- .map(|v| v != StdlibVersion::Version(11)) + .map(|v| v < StdlibVersion::Version(12))Or consider externalizing the target version into a configuration parameter.
Line range hint
155-157: Use constants or enums instead of magic numbers for strategy values.The code sets the module upgrade strategy to
100directly:chain_state.set(&strategy_path, vec![100])?;Consider defining a constant or using an existing enum to represent this value for better clarity.
Suggested change:
+ const DIRECT_UPGRADE_STRATEGY: u8 = 100; chain_state.set(&strategy_path, vec![DIRECT_UPGRADE_STRATEGY])?;
Line range hint
181-184: Avoid hardcoding version numbers; consider using constants or configuration.The code updates the stdlib version to
12directly:let version = on_chain_config::Version { major: 12 };To enhance maintainability, consider defining version numbers as constants or retrieving them from configuration.
Suggested change:
+ let new_version = StdlibVersion::Version(12); let version = on_chain_config::Version { major: new_version.as_u64() };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (12)
- Cargo.toml (3 hunks)
- benchmarks/Cargo.toml (0 hunks)
- chain/Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
- chain/open-block/Cargo.toml (0 hunks)
- chain/open-block/src/lib.rs (1 hunks)
- chain/src/chain.rs (1 hunks)
- chain/tests/test_force_upgrade.rs.ignored (1 hunks)
- executor/Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
- executor/src/block_executor.rs (1 hunks)
- vm/force-upgrade/Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
- vm/force-upgrade/src/lib.rs (1 hunks)
- vm/vm-runtime/src/lib.rs (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)
- benchmarks/Cargo.toml
- chain/open-block/Cargo.toml
- vm/vm-runtime/src/lib.rs
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (13)
vm/force-upgrade/Cargo.toml (1)
Line range hint
1-38: Summary of changes and potential impactThe modifications to this
Cargo.tomlfile indicate a refactoring effort related to force-upgrade functionality:
- The addition of the
hexdependency suggests new or modified functionality for handling hexadecimal data.- The new
force-deployfeature implies the introduction of optional force deployment capabilities.These changes align with the PR objective of moving the starcoin-force-upgrade functionality to the VM component. However, the full impact of these changes can only be assessed in conjunction with the associated code changes in the Rust source files.
To ensure these changes are consistent with the rest of the codebase, please run the following verification script:
This script will help verify that the new dependency and feature are being used appropriately in the codebase.
executor/Cargo.toml (1)
40-40: LGTM. Verify the new feature implementation.The change aligns with the PR objective of moving the starcoin-force-upgrade functionality. This update correctly points the
force-deployfeature to the new location in thestarcoin-force-upgradecrate.To ensure the change is implemented correctly, please verify:
- The
starcoin-force-upgradecrate properly implements theforce-deployfeature.- Any code previously relying on
starcoin-vm-runtime/force-deployhas been updated.- The build process succeeds with this new feature configuration.
Run the following script to check for any remaining references to the old feature:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: No references to
starcoin-vm-runtime/force-deployfound.The
force-deployfeature has been successfully moved to thestarcoin-force-upgradecrate with no remaining dependencies onstarcoin-vm-runtime. This ensures the functionality aligns with the PR objectives and maintains codebase integrity.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to the old force-deploy feature # Test: Search for references to the old feature. Expect: No results. rg --type rust "starcoin-vm-runtime/force-deploy"Length of output: 49
vm/force-upgrade/src/lib.rs (2)
21-22: Verify the relationship between the new module and existing code.While the addition of the
force_upgrade_managementmodule doesn't directly affect the existingForceUpgradestruct, it's important to ensure there's no duplication or conflict in functionality.Please run the following script to analyze the relationship between the new module and the existing code:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze the relationship between the new module and existing code # Test: Search for references to ForceUpgrade in the new module fd --type f "force_upgrade_management.rs" vm/force-upgrade/src --exec rg "ForceUpgrade" # Test: Search for similar method names or functionality in both files fd --type f "(force_upgrade_management|lib).rs" vm/force-upgrade/src --exec rg "force_deploy|upgrade"Review the output to ensure that the new module complements rather than conflicts with the existing
ForceUpgradefunctionality.
21-22: LGTM! Verify the contents of the new module.The addition of the
force_upgrade_managementmodule under theforce-deployfeature flag is a good approach for introducing new functionality. This allows for better organization and separation of concerns.To ensure the new module is properly implemented, please run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Addition of
force_upgrade_managementmodule.The
force_upgrade_managementmodule has been successfully added under theforce-deployfeature flag, containing relevant functionalities for managing force upgrades.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the contents of the new force_upgrade_management module # Test: Check if the new module file exists fd --type f "force_upgrade_management.rs" vm/force-upgrade/src # Test: Inspect the contents of the new module fd --type f "force_upgrade_management.rs" vm/force-upgrade/src --exec catLength of output: 1123
chain/Cargo.toml (1)
54-54: LGTM. Verify impact on force-deploy feature usage.The change aligns with the PR objective of moving the starcoin-force-upgrade functionality. The
force-deployfeature now depends onstarcoin-force-upgrade/force-deployinstead ofstarcoin-vm-runtime/force-deploy, which suggests a reorganization of this feature into a dedicated module.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following script to verify that all references to the force-deploy feature in the chain module have been updated accordingly:
chain/tests/test_force_upgrade.rs.ignored (2)
Line range hint
16-238: Verify test results after refactoring.The test cases remain unchanged after the refactoring of the force upgrade functionality. To ensure that the move to the new
starcoin_force_upgrademodule hasn't introduced any regressions:
Run these specific tests and verify that they all pass:
test_force_upgrade_generate_blocktest_force_upgrade_1test_force_upgrade_2Check the test coverage to ensure that the new module is adequately tested.
Run the following script to execute the tests and generate a coverage report:
If any tests fail or if the coverage is insufficient, please address these issues before merging the PR.
9-9: LGTM! Verify new module functionality.The import change from
starcoin_vm_runtime::force_upgrade_managementtostarcoin_force_upgrade::force_upgrade_managementaligns with the PR objective of moving the starcoin-force-upgrade functionality. The unchanged usage ofget_force_upgrade_block_numberthroughout the tests suggests that the function's interface remains compatible.To ensure the refactoring hasn't introduced any issues, please verify that:
- The
starcoin_force_upgradecrate is properly set up and included in the project.- The
force_upgrade_managementmodule in the new location contains all necessary functionality.Run the following script to check for any potential issues:
chain/open-block/src/lib.rs (1)
30-31: LGTM: Import statements reorganized for better clarityThe reorganization of import statements, specifically moving
ForceUpgradeto be part of theforce_upgrade_managementmodule import, improves code organization and readability. This change doesn't affect functionality and aligns with best practices for managing imports.Cargo.toml (1)
43-43: LGTM! Verify other potential references to the old path.The changes correctly update the path for the
force-upgrademodule fromchain/force-upgradetovm/force-upgradein both themembersanddefault-memberssections. This aligns with the PR objective of refactoring the starcoin-force-upgrade functionality to the vm component.To ensure consistency across the codebase, please run the following command to check for any remaining references to the old path:
If this command returns any results, those files may need to be updated as well.
Also applies to: 157-157, 475-475
chain/src/chain.rs (2)
Line range hint
1-1034: Summary of changes and recommendations.The main changes in this file revolve around the introduction of the
force-deployfeature. This feature allows for conditional compilation of force upgrade related functionality and modifies the block validation process to accommodate an extra transaction during force upgrades.Overall, the changes appear to be focused and minimal. However, to improve the robustness and maintainability of the code, consider the following recommendations:
- Add comprehensive comments explaining the rationale behind the force upgrade process and how it affects block validation.
- Implement additional logging throughout the force upgrade process to aid in debugging and monitoring.
- Consider adding more assertions to ensure the integrity of the force upgrade process.
- Review the error handling strategy for force upgrade scenarios to ensure all edge cases are covered.
These changes will help improve the code's clarity and make it easier to maintain and debug in the future.
24-25: New feature flag and import added for force-deploy functionality.A new feature flag
force-deployhas been introduced, and a corresponding import forget_force_upgrade_block_numberfrom thestarcoin_force_upgrade::force_upgrade_managementmodule has been added. This change allows for conditional compilation of force upgrade related functionality.To ensure this change is consistent across the codebase, let's check for other usages of this feature flag:
✅ Verification successful
Verification Complete: The
force-deployfeature flag usage is consistent across the codebase. No issues found.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other usages of the force-deploy feature flag rg --type rust '#\[cfg\(feature = "force-deploy"\)\]'Length of output: 900
executor/src/block_executor.rs (2)
23-25: Imports are correctly updated.The necessary functions
get_force_upgrade_accountandget_force_upgrade_block_numberare imported fromstarcoin_force_upgrade::force_upgrade_management.
Line range hint
37-39: Confirm that skipping serialization ofwith_extra_txnis intended.The field
with_extra_txnis marked with#[serde(skip)], meaning it will not be serialized or deserialized. Ensure that this is intentional and that the field does not need to be persisted.
Pull request type
Please check the type of change your PR introduces:
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
Other information
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
force-deployfor enhanced force upgrade management.Bug Fixes
Refactor
Chores