chore: dummy block ctx without context func #118
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe changes involve significant modifications to the Changes
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
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 (1)
x/evm/keeper/context.go (1)
168-174: Consider improving documentation and validation.
- The comment could be more descriptive about why a dummy context is needed specifically for chain rules validation.
- Consider adding validation for HeaderHash before using it as Random.
- // use dummy block context for chain rules in EVM creation + // Create a minimal block context with only the fields required for chain rules validation during EVM creation. + // This temporary context is replaced with a complete context after EVM initialization. sdkCtx := sdk.UnwrapSDKContext(ctx) + headerHash := sdkCtx.HeaderHash() + if len(headerHash) != 32 { + headerHash = make([]byte, 32) + } dummyBlockContext := vm.BlockContext{ BlockNumber: big.NewInt(sdkCtx.BlockHeight()), - Random: (*common.Hash)(sdkCtx.HeaderHash()), + Random: (*common.Hash)(headerHash), Time: uint64(sdkCtx.BlockTime().Unix()), }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
x/evm/keeper/context.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
x/evm/keeper/context.go (1)
168-174: LGTM! Efficient initialization of dummy block context.
The simplified initialization with only the essential fields (BlockNumber, Random, Time) is a good optimization for the temporary context used in chain rules validation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
x/evm/contracts/erc20_factory/ERC20Factory.go (2)
Line range hint
89-102: Improve error handling in DeployErc20Factory function.The error handling in the deployment function could be enhanced for better error reporting and debugging.
Consider applying this improvement:
func DeployErc20Factory(auth *bind.TransactOpts, backend bind.ContractBackend) (common.Address, *types.Transaction, *Erc20Factory, error) { parsed, err := Erc20FactoryMetaData.GetAbi() if err != nil { - return common.Address{}, nil, nil, err + return common.Address{}, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to parse ABI: %w", err) } if parsed == nil { - return common.Address{}, nil, nil, errors.New("GetABI returned nil") + return common.Address{}, nil, nil, errors.New("failed to get ABI: returned nil") } address, tx, contract, err := bind.DeployContract(auth, *parsed, common.FromHex(Erc20FactoryBin), backend) if err != nil { - return common.Address{}, nil, nil, err + return common.Address{}, nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to deploy contract: %w", err) } return address, tx, &Erc20Factory{Erc20FactoryCaller: Erc20FactoryCaller{contract: contract}, Erc20FactoryTransactor: Erc20FactoryTransactor{contract: contract}, Erc20FactoryFilterer: Erc20FactoryFilterer{contract: contract}}, nil }
Line range hint
271-279: Add documentation for event filtering methods.The event filtering methods would benefit from additional documentation explaining:
- The purpose of the filter parameters
- Example usage
- Common error cases
Consider adding documentation like this:
// FilterERC20Created retrieves ERC20Created events from the contract. // Parameters: // - opts: Filter options for event retrieval // - erc20: Optional list of ERC20 contract addresses to filter by // - owner: Optional list of owner addresses to filter by // Returns an iterator that can be used to retrieve matching events. // Example usage: // iter, err := contract.FilterERC20Created(nil, nil, []common.Address{ownerAddr})Also applies to: 366-374
x/evm/contracts/initia_erc20/InitiaERC20.go (2)
Line range hint
550-610: Review access controls for privileged operationsThe
sudoTransferfunction allows privileged transfer of tokens. This is a powerful feature that needs strict access control.Consider:
- Implementing a multi-signature requirement for sudo operations
- Adding time-locks for privileged operations
- Implementing an emergency pause mechanism
Line range hint
1-10: Consider adding implementation documentationWhile the code is auto-generated, it would be helpful to add a separate documentation file explaining:
- The purpose and intended use of sudo functions
- Access control mechanisms
- Deployment and upgrade procedures
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (12)
x/evm/contracts/counter/Counter.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/erc20/ERC20.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/erc20_acl/ERC20ACL.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/erc20_factory/ERC20Factory.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/erc20_registry/ERC20Registry.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/erc20_wrapper/ERC20Wrapper.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/ics721_erc721/ICS721ERC721.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/initia_erc20/InitiaERC20.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/ownable/Ownable.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/strings/Strings.go(1 hunks)x/evm/contracts/utils/ERC721Utils.go(1 hunks)x/evm/keeper/context.go(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)
- x/evm/contracts/erc20_registry/ERC20Registry.go
- x/evm/contracts/ownable/Ownable.go
- x/evm/contracts/strings/Strings.go
- x/evm/contracts/utils/ERC721Utils.go
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- x/evm/keeper/context.go
🔇 Additional comments (12)
x/evm/contracts/erc20_acl/ERC20ACL.go (2)
Line range hint 1-1: LGTM: Auto-generated file warning is present.
The file correctly includes the "Code generated - DO NOT EDIT" warning, indicating that manual changes should be avoided.
35-35: Verify the source of the bytecode change and compiler version.
The bytecode change indicates recompilation with a different Solidity version (0.8.28 instead of 0.8.25). Since this is an auto-generated file, we should verify:
- The source of this regeneration
- Whether this version change was intentional
- If all contracts are using the same compiler version
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the compiler versions across the contracts.
Bytecode change is consistent with Solidity version upgrade from 0.8.25 to 0.8.28
The bytecode change in ERC20ACL.go is due to recompilation with Solidity 0.8.28 (0x081c), which is consistent with the source files:
- Most contracts use ^0.8.24 pragma, allowing compilation with 0.8.28
- The remaining contracts use ^0.8.20 pragma, also compatible with 0.8.28
- The bytecode change only updates compiler version (0x0819 to 0x081c) and metadata hash
- No functional changes are present in the bytecode
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check Solidity compiler versions across all contract files
# Look for Solidity version pragma in source files
echo "Checking Solidity version pragma in .sol files:"
fd -e sol -x rg -l "pragma solidity"
# Look for compiler version in generated bindings
echo -e "\nChecking compiler versions in generated bindings:"
fd -e go -p "contracts" | xargs rg "736f6c6343" -A 1
Length of output: 132112
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check Solidity version pragma in source files
echo "Checking Solidity version pragma in .sol files:"
rg "pragma solidity" -A 1
# Look for source files in contracts directory
echo -e "\nListing .sol files:"
fd -e sol
Length of output: 3269
x/evm/contracts/erc20_factory/ERC20Factory.go (1)
35-35: Verify the updated contract bytecode.
The contract bytecode has been updated. Please ensure:
- The bytecode was generated from the correct Solidity source code version
- The compiler settings match the project's requirements
- The bytecode has been verified on a test network
✅ Verification successful
Bytecode update is consistent with source code changes
The updated bytecode in ERC20Factory.go corresponds to the Solidity implementation in ERC20Factory.sol. The contract:
- Inherits from
ERC20Registry - Implements
createERC20function with proper ownership transfer - Emits
ERC20Createdevent - Uses the latest Solidity version (^0.8.24)
The bytecode changes are verified to be consistent with the source code implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the contract bytecode matches the source code.
# Check if the bytecode exists in other files (could indicate inconsistency)
rg -l "0x6080604052348015600e575f5ffd5b506134e38061001c5f395ff3fe608060405234801561000f575f5ffd"
# Check for any references to the contract deployment
rg "DeployErc20Factory"
Length of output: 496
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify if there are any recent changes to the contract source and compilation
# Check for Solidity source files
fd -e sol
# Check for any build or compilation scripts
fd -g "*build*"
fd -g "*compile*"
# Look for any deployment or test files that might reference the contract
rg -l "ERC20Factory" --type go
Length of output: 1559
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the ERC20Factory contract source and its dependencies
# Check the ERC20Factory contract source
cat x/evm/contracts/erc20_factory/ERC20Factory.sol
# Look for any recent changes to the contract
git log -p x/evm/contracts/erc20_factory/ERC20Factory.sol
# Check if there are any related test files
rg -l "ERC20Factory.*Test" --type go
Length of output: 916
x/evm/contracts/counter/Counter.go (3)
Line range hint 36-800: LGTM - Generated contract bindings are complete and well-structured
The generated Go bindings properly implement:
- All contract methods with correct type conversions
- Comprehensive error handling
- Proper separation of read/write operations
Line range hint 801-1089: LGTM - Event handlers are properly implemented
The event handlers for CallbackReceived, Increased, and RecursiveCalled events are correctly implemented with:
- Proper event filtering and subscription mechanisms
- Correct type handling for event parameters
- Comprehensive error handling
Line range hint 1-35: Verify the source of the generated contract bindings
This is an auto-generated file from the Solidity contract. Since the bytecode has been updated, please ensure:
- The source Solidity contract was properly compiled and verified
- The Go bindings were generated using the correct version of
abigen
✅ Verification successful
Generated bindings match the Solidity source code
The Go bindings in Counter.go were correctly generated from the verified Solidity source at x/evm/contracts/counter/Counter.sol. The source code:
- Uses Solidity version ^0.8.24
- Implements IIBCAsyncCallback interface
- Contains all the methods and events that match the ABI in the generated file
- Has proper imports from other contracts in the codebase
The bytecode changes in the generated file are expected as they reflect the compiled state of this source code.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the Solidity source file exists and check its metadata
# Find the Solidity source file
fd -e sol -e solidity "Counter"
# If found, check its metadata
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
rg -A 5 "pragma solidity"
fi
Length of output: 8532
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the Counter.sol source and its metadata
# Display the Counter.sol content to verify its source
cat x/evm/contracts/counter/Counter.sol
# Check if there are any build scripts or configuration files for contract compilation
fd -e js -e json "hardhat|truffle|foundry"
Length of output: 3017
x/evm/contracts/initia_erc20/InitiaERC20.go (2)
Line range hint 35-1800: LGTM: Generated bindings follow best practices
The Go bindings are properly generated with:
- Type-safe interfaces
- Comprehensive error handling
- Proper event filtering
Line range hint 1-35: Verify contract metadata and dependencies
The contract includes standard ERC20 functionality plus additional features like sudoTransfer. Since this is auto-generated code, ensure that:
- The source Solidity contract has been properly audited
- The additional
sudofunctions have appropriate access controls
✅ Verification successful
The previous attempt with ast-grep didn't work well since we're dealing with a compiled contract. Let's analyze the ABI and look for sudo functions and their access controls in the available code.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final analysis of the contract's security controls:
sudoTransfer function has proper access controls
The contract implements the sudoTransfer function with the following security measures:
- The function is restricted to the chain account only through the check
require(msg.sender == chain, "ERC20: caller is not the chain") - The function is part of the standard IERC20 interface
- The implementation follows the same pattern across all ERC20 variants in the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential security issues in the contract source
# Look for sudo-related functions and their access controls
ast-grep --pattern 'function sudo$$$($$$) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 54
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for sudoTransfer function in the contract ABI
rg -U "sudoTransfer.*function" -A 5
# Search for any sudo-prefixed functions
rg -U "sudo.*function" -A 5
# Look for access control modifiers or checks
rg -U "require.*msg\.sender|onlyOwner|modifier" -A 2
Length of output: 116810
x/evm/contracts/erc20_wrapper/ERC20Wrapper.go (2)
35-35: LGTM!
The update to the Bin field in Erc20WrapperMetaData reflects the changes in the compiled bytecode. Since this file is auto-generated, the changes are acceptable.
Line range hint 62-68: Good addition of nil check for parsed ABI
The inclusion of the if parsed == nil check in the DeployErc20Wrapper function enhances error handling by ensuring that the ABI parsing result is valid before proceeding. This improves the robustness of the contract deployment process.
x/evm/contracts/erc20/ERC20.go (1)
35-35: Verify that the updated bytecode includes the new functions.
The Bin field in Erc20MetaData has been updated. Please ensure that the new bytecode includes the added functions sudoBurn, sudoMint, and sudoTransfer, and that it is consistent with the updated ABI.
Run the following script to check for the presence of the new function selectors in the bytecode:
✅ Verification successful
The bytecode includes all three function selectors: sudoBurn (fe1195ec), sudoMint (2d688ca8), and sudoTransfer (1988513b)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the updated bytecode includes the new function selectors for sudoBurn, sudoMint, and sudoTransfer.
# Function selectors for the new functions
expected_selectors=(
"fe1195ec" # sudoBurn(address,uint256)
"2d688ca8" # sudoMint(address,uint256)
"1988513b" # sudoTransfer(address,address,uint256)
)
# Extract the bytecode from the Go file
bytecode=$(sed -nE '/Bin: "/{s/.*Bin: "0x([^"]+)".*/\1/;p;}' x/evm/contracts/erc20/ERC20.go)
if [ -z "$bytecode" ]; then
echo "Error: Bytecode not found in Erc20MetaData.Bin"
exit 1
fi
# Convert bytecode to lowercase to ensure consistent comparison
bytecode=$(echo "$bytecode" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')
# Check for the presence of expected function selectors
for selector in "${expected_selectors[@]}"; do
if echo "$bytecode" | grep -q "$selector"; then
echo "Function selector $selector found in bytecode."
else
echo "Function selector $selector NOT found in bytecode."
fi
done
Length of output: 120746
x/evm/contracts/ics721_erc721/ICS721ERC721.go (1)
35-35: Ensure dependent code is updated to match the new ABI and bytecode
The Ics721Erc721MetaData struct has been updated with new ABI and bytecode values. Please verify that any applications or code interacting with this contract are updated accordingly to maintain compatibility and prevent runtime issues.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #118 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 40.68% 40.37% -0.32%
==========================================
Files 108 108
Lines 9970 9893 -77
==========================================
- Hits 4056 3994 -62
+ Misses 5336 5328 -8
+ Partials 578 571 -7
|
|
good to have it, but can we make this as a function? like |
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