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

docs: clarify what is available in ctx.BlockHeader() #23394

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

julienrbrt
Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt commented Jan 15, 2025

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, you can find examples of the prefixes below:
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code
  • 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.

Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.

I have...

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

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation

    • Enhanced comments for BlockHeader() method to clarify block finalization details
    • Provided guidance on obtaining additional block information
  • New Features

    • Added AppVersion() method to ConsensusKeeper interface, enabling application version retrieval

@julienrbrt julienrbrt added the backport/v0.52.x PR scheduled for inclusion in the v0.52's next stable release label Jan 15, 2025
@julienrbrt julienrbrt requested a review from a team as a code owner January 15, 2025 12:48
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 15, 2025

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces two distinct changes: first, enhancing documentation for the BlockHeader method in the Context struct to clarify which fields are populated during block finalization, and second, adding a new AppVersion method to the ConsensusKeeper interface to retrieve the application version. These modifications aim to improve code clarity and provide additional functionality for accessing application metadata.

Changes

File Change Summary
types/context.go Updated method comments for BlockHeader() to explain which fields are filled by baseapp during block finalization
x/auth/ante/expected_keepers.go Added new method AppVersion(ctx context.Context) (uint64, error) to ConsensusKeeper interface

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

C:server/v2, C:x/auth

Suggested reviewers

  • tac0turtle
  • aljo242
  • sontrinh16

Finishing Touches

  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

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>, please review it.
    • 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 gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @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.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

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.

Comment on lines 92 to 98
func (c Context) HeaderInfo() header.Info { return c.headerInfo }

// BlockHeader returns the header by value.
// Note, only ChainID, Time and Height are always filled by baseapp.
// In finalize block, the proposer address, validator hash and app hash are also filled.
// Use CometInfo service and/or the Consensus Keeper for getting more information.
func (c Context) BlockHeader() cmtproto.Header {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Change potentially affects state.

Call sequence:

(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.Context).BlockHeader (types/context.go:95)
(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types.Context).WithProposer (types/context.go:183)
(*github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/baseapp.BaseApp).PrepareProposal (types/context.go:408)

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 2

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 69defb4 and 7ec7bde.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • types/context.go (1 hunks)
  • x/auth/ante/expected_keepers.go (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • types/context.go
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
x/auth/ante/expected_keepers.go (1)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.

🪛 GitHub Actions: Tests / Code Coverage
x/auth/ante/expected_keepers.go

[warning] No test coverage (0.0% of statements covered)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
  • GitHub Check: test-system-v2
  • GitHub Check: Analyze
  • GitHub Check: Summary

@@ -28,5 +28,6 @@ type FeegrantKeeper interface {
}

type ConsensusKeeper interface {
AppVersion(ctx context.Context) (uint64, error)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Add godoc comments for the new AppVersion method.

Following Go best practices and the Uber style guide, please add documentation explaining:

  • The purpose of this method
  • What the returned version number represents
  • When errors might be returned

Example:

+// AppVersion returns the current application version.
+// It returns an error if the version cannot be retrieved.
 AppVersion(ctx context.Context) (uint64, error)
📝 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.

Suggested change
AppVersion(ctx context.Context) (uint64, error)
// AppVersion returns the current application version.
// It returns an error if the version cannot be retrieved.
AppVersion(ctx context.Context) (uint64, error)
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: Tests / Code Coverage

[warning] No test coverage (0.0% of statements covered)

Comment on lines +31 to 33
AppVersion(ctx context.Context) (uint64, error)
BlockParams(context.Context) (uint64, uint64, error)
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codebase verification

Missing test coverage for ConsensusKeeper interface methods

The ConsensusKeeper interface lacks test coverage:

  • No tests found for the new AppVersion method
  • No actual usage of BlockParams method found in tests
  • Mock implementation in testutil/expected_keepers_mocks.go is outdated and missing the AppVersion method

Please:

  1. Update the mock implementation to include the AppVersion method
  2. Add test coverage for both AppVersion and BlockParams methods
  3. Ensure the mock is properly used in integration tests
🔗 Analysis chain

Add test coverage for the ConsensusKeeper interface.

The pipeline indicates 0% test coverage. Please add tests to verify the behavior of implementations of this interface, particularly the new AppVersion method.

Let me help verify the current test coverage:

Would you like me to help create a test suite for this interface?

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for existing test files and their coverage
echo "Checking for existing test files..."
fd --type f "expected_keepers_test.go" .

echo "Checking test coverage for ConsensusKeeper implementations..."
rg -l "type \w+ struct.*implements.*ConsensusKeeper" 

Length of output: 309


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Find all test files in auth/ante directory
echo "=== Test files in auth/ante ==="
fd -e go -e test.go . x/auth/ante/

# Search for ConsensusKeeper interface implementations
echo -e "\n=== ConsensusKeeper implementations ==="
ast-grep --pattern 'type $_ struct {
  $$$
}'

# Search for ConsensusKeeper usage in test files
echo -e "\n=== ConsensusKeeper usage in tests ==="
rg "ConsensusKeeper" -A 5 -B 5 --type go --glob "*_test.go"

# Look for mock implementations
echo -e "\n=== Mock implementations ==="
rg "mock.*ConsensusKeeper" --type go

Length of output: 68209


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for ConsensusKeeper interface usage and mocks in test files
echo "=== ConsensusKeeper in test files ==="
rg -B 5 -A 5 "ConsensusKeeper" x/auth/ante/testutil/expected_keepers_mocks.go

# Search for AppVersion and BlockParams method usage in tests
echo -e "\n=== AppVersion and BlockParams usage in tests ==="
rg -l "AppVersion|BlockParams" x/auth/ante/**/*_test.go

# Check mock implementations
echo -e "\n=== Mock implementations content ==="
cat x/auth/ante/testutil/expected_keepers_mocks.go

Length of output: 10079


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for actual usage of BlockParams in tests
echo "=== BlockParams usage in tests ==="
rg -B 5 -A 5 "BlockParams" x/auth/ante/unorderedtx/manager_test.go x/auth/ante/unorderedtx/snapshotter_test.go

# Check if AppVersion is used anywhere in tests
echo -e "\n=== AppVersion usage in tests ==="
rg -l "AppVersion" x/auth/ante/**/*_test.go

Length of output: 375

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: Tests / Code Coverage

[warning] No test coverage (0.0% of statements covered)

@aljo242
Copy link
Collaborator

aljo242 commented Jan 15, 2025

LGTM but lint failing

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport/v0.52.x PR scheduled for inclusion in the v0.52's next stable release C:x/auth
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants