Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore: moving leverage params functions into separate file #2490

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 12, 2024

Conversation

gsk967
Copy link
Collaborator

@gsk967 gsk967 commented Apr 12, 2024

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...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • added appropriate labels to the PR
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers 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...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Simplified parameter handling in the leverage module by centralizing functions.
  • Chores
    • Removed unused code related to parameter storage and initialization.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 12, 2024

Walkthrough

The recent modifications focus on the parameter management within the x/leverage module of a software application. The initialization of a specific module (leveragetypes) has been removed from app.go, while params.go has been added to handle parameter functionalities explicitly. Concurrently, store.go has seen the removal of parameter handling functions, streamlining its responsibilities.

Changes

Files Change Summary
app/app.go Removed initialization of leveragetypes.ModuleName subspace.
x/leverage/keeper/params.go Added to handle parameter setting and getting for the x/leverage module.
x/leverage/keeper/store.go Removed SetParams and GetParams functions; removed import of util/store.

🐇💻✨
Oh, hop and code, dear devs, with glee,
For changes come, oh can't you see?
No more clutter in our store,
Params managed, less is more.
Let's nibble on the fresh new code,
In our digital abode! 🌟🐰


Recent Review Details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9673980 and 8dc9f7b.
Files selected for processing (3)
  • app/app.go (1 hunks)
  • x/leverage/keeper/params.go (1 hunks)
  • x/leverage/keeper/store.go (2 hunks)
Files not reviewed due to errors (1)
  • (no review received)
Additional Context Used
GitHub Check Runs (2)
codecov/patch failure (1)

x/leverage/keeper/params.go: [warning] 18-18: x/leverage/keeper/params.go#L18
Added line #L18 was not covered by tests

CodeQL success (1)

x/leverage/keeper/params.go: [warning] 18-18: Panic in BeginBock or EndBlock consensus methods
Possible panics in BeginBock- or EndBlock-related consensus methods could cause a chain halt

Additional comments not posted (3)
x/leverage/keeper/params.go (2)

9-12: LGTM! The SetParams function is correctly implemented to update the leverage parameters.


14-21: Consider replacing the panic with a more graceful error handling in GetParams. Panics can cause a chain halt, which is critical in blockchain contexts. Additionally, ensure this function is covered by tests to prevent runtime surprises.

- panic("params not initialized")
+ return types.Params{}, fmt.Errorf("params not initialized")
Verification successful

The verification process confirms that the error handling scenario where parameters are not initialized in GetParams is not covered by tests. This aligns with the initial review comment recommending the addition of test coverage to handle this scenario more gracefully. It is important to ensure that such critical paths are tested to prevent runtime issues, especially in a blockchain context where stability is crucial.

Scripts Executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Ensure the modified error handling is covered by tests.
rg --type go 'GetParams' --exec cat {} | grep 'params not initialized'

Length of output: 481



Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for the string "params not initialized" in Go files to check if it's used in tests.
rg 'params not initialized' --type go

Length of output: 101

app/app.go (1)

Line range hint 1-1: The removal of the initialization of the subspace for leveragetypes.ModuleName in the initParamsKeeper function aligns with the PR's objective to reorganize parameter handling by moving it to a separate file. Ensure that this change is reflected in the new params.go file and that there are no unintended side effects in the system due to this change.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

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 as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 12, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.34%. Comparing base (7f05ad4) to head (8dc9f7b).
Report is 439 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2490      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.38%   69.34%   -6.05%     
==========================================
  Files         100      190      +90     
  Lines        8025    10944    +2919     
==========================================
+ Hits         6050     7589    +1539     
- Misses       1589     2727    +1138     
- Partials      386      628     +242     
Files Coverage Δ
x/leverage/keeper/store.go 80.62% <ø> (+3.79%) ⬆️
x/leverage/keeper/params.go 71.42% <71.42%> (-28.58%) ⬇️

... and 176 files with indirect coverage changes

func (k Keeper) GetParams(ctx sdk.Context) types.Params {
params := store.GetValue[*types.Params](ctx.KVStore(k.storeKey), types.KeyParams, "leverage params")
if params == nil {
panic("params not initialized")

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Panic in BeginBock or EndBlock consensus methods Warning

Possible panics in BeginBock- or EndBlock-related consensus methods could cause a chain halt
@gsk967 gsk967 marked this pull request as ready for review April 12, 2024 10:45
@gsk967 gsk967 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 12, 2024 10:45
@gsk967 gsk967 requested a review from robert-zaremba April 12, 2024 13:46
@robert-zaremba robert-zaremba added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 12, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 839fdbf Apr 12, 2024
25 of 27 checks passed
@robert-zaremba robert-zaremba deleted the sai/lev_params branch April 12, 2024 13:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants