fix(x/staking): use staking bonddenom in check #22646
Conversation
julienrbrt
requested review from
facundomedica,
testinginprod,
JulianToledano,
ziscky and
a team
as code owners
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yml 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (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
Documentation and Community
|
|
@julienrbrt your pull request is missing a changelog! |
julienrbrt
added
the
backport/v0.52.x
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
x/staking/types/params.go(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
x/staking/types/params.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
x/staking/types/params.go (1)
113-113: LGTM: Correctly passing BondDenom to validation function
The change properly forwards the bond denomination to the validation function, ensuring consistent denomination checking.
x/staking/types/params.go
Outdated
| func validateKeyRotationFee(bondDenom string, coin sdk.Coin) error { | ||
| if strings.TrimSpace(bondDenom) == "" { | ||
| return errors.New("bond denom cannot be blank") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if v.IsNil() { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be nil: %s", v) | ||
| if coin.IsNil() { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be nil: %s", coin) | ||
| } | ||
| if v.IsLTE(sdk.NewInt64Coin(sdk.DefaultBondDenom, 0)) { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be negative or zero: %s", v) | ||
|
|
||
| if coin.IsLTE(sdk.NewInt64Coin(bondDenom, 0)) { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be negative or zero: %s", coin) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Several improvements needed in validateKeyRotationFee
- The error messages inconsistently refer to "cons pubkey rotation fee" while the variable is named "KeyRotationFee"
- Missing validation to ensure the coin's denomination matches the bondDenom
- Consider reusing the existing
validateBondDenomfunction instead of duplicating the blank check logic
Here's the suggested implementation:
func validateKeyRotationFee(bondDenom string, coin sdk.Coin) error {
- if strings.TrimSpace(bondDenom) == "" {
- return errors.New("bond denom cannot be blank")
- }
+ if err := validateBondDenom(bondDenom); err != nil {
+ return err
+ }
if coin.IsNil() {
- return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be nil: %s", coin)
+ return fmt.Errorf("key rotation fee cannot be nil: %s", coin)
}
+ if coin.Denom != bondDenom {
+ return fmt.Errorf("key rotation fee denom %s must match bond denom %s",
+ coin.Denom, bondDenom)
+ }
if coin.IsLTE(sdk.NewInt64Coin(bondDenom, 0)) {
- return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be negative or zero: %s", coin)
+ return fmt.Errorf("key rotation fee cannot be negative or zero: %s", coin)
}
return nil
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| func validateKeyRotationFee(bondDenom string, coin sdk.Coin) error { | |
| if strings.TrimSpace(bondDenom) == "" { | |
| return errors.New("bond denom cannot be blank") | |
| } | |
| if v.IsNil() { | |
| return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be nil: %s", v) | |
| if coin.IsNil() { | |
| return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be nil: %s", coin) | |
| } | |
| if v.IsLTE(sdk.NewInt64Coin(sdk.DefaultBondDenom, 0)) { | |
| return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be negative or zero: %s", v) | |
| if coin.IsLTE(sdk.NewInt64Coin(bondDenom, 0)) { | |
| return fmt.Errorf("cons pubkey rotation fee cannot be negative or zero: %s", coin) | |
| func validateKeyRotationFee(bondDenom string, coin sdk.Coin) error { | |
| if err := validateBondDenom(bondDenom); err != nil { | |
| return err | |
| } | |
| if coin.IsNil() { | |
| return fmt.Errorf("key rotation fee cannot be nil: %s", coin) | |
| } | |
| if coin.Denom != bondDenom { | |
| return fmt.Errorf("key rotation fee denom %s must match bond denom %s", | |
| coin.Denom, bondDenom) | |
| } | |
| if coin.IsLTE(sdk.NewInt64Coin(bondDenom, 0)) { | |
| return fmt.Errorf("key rotation fee cannot be negative or zero: %s", coin) | |
| } | |
| return nil | |
| } |
💡 Codebase verification
Additional test coverage needed for key rotation fee validation
The current test coverage in params_test.go is insufficient for the new validation logic. While there is a basic test for zero coins, it's missing tests for:
- Blank bond denomination validation
- Nil coin validation
- Negative coin validation
- Mismatched denomination validation
Please add test cases to cover these scenarios in the TestValidateParams function:
// Test cases to add:
params.BondDenom = "" // blank denomination
params.KeyRotationFee = nil // nil coin
params.KeyRotationFee = sdk.NewInt64Coin("stake", -1) // negative amount
params.KeyRotationFee = sdk.NewInt64Coin("different", 100) // mismatched denom🔗 Analysis chain
Verify test coverage for the new validation logic
Please ensure that unit tests cover:
- Validation with mismatched denominations
- Validation with blank bond denomination
- Validation with nil and non-positive coins
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for relevant test cases in the codebase
rg -l "TestValidateKeyRotationFee|TestParams_Validate" "x/staking/types"
Length of output: 72
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for test files in the staking types directory
fd ".*_test.go" "x/staking/types"
# Then let's look for any test cases related to params validation
rg -A 5 "func.*Test.*Param" "x/staking/types"
# Also search for any test cases containing "KeyRotation"
rg -A 5 "KeyRotation.*Test" "x/staking/types"
Length of output: 1038
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of params_test.go to see the existing test coverage
cat "x/staking/types/params_test.go"
Length of output: 1016
(cherry picked from commit a60dfda)
) Co-authored-by: Julien Robert <[email protected]>
Description
Closes: #22645
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 changeCHANGELOG.mdReviewers 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.
Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.
I have...
Summary by CodeRabbit