Clean subaccounts/lib/updates.go codepaths
#1767
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes focus on enhancing subaccount management by consolidating update loops, refining risk calculations, and improving test structures. Key updates include the direct passing of Changes
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
subaccounts/lib/updates.go codepaths
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (12)
- protocol/daemons/liquidation/client/sub_task_runner.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount.go (5 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount_test.go (5 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/lib/updates.go (6 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/lib/updates_test.go (4 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/asset_position.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/asset_position_test.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/errors.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/perpetual_position.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/perpetual_position_test.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/subaccount.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/subaccount_test.go (5 hunks)
Files not reviewed due to errors (5)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/asset_position.go (no review received)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/perpetual_position.go (no review received)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/subaccount.go (no review received)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/errors.go (no review received)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/lib/updates_test.go (no review received)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/asset_position_test.go
- protocol/x/subaccounts/types/perpetual_position_test.go
Additional comments not posted (19)
protocol/x/subaccounts/types/subaccount_test.go (8)
16-16: Renamed Test Functions for Clarity:
The renaming of the test functionTestBaseQuantums_ToBigIntimproves clarity and aligns with best practices for naming conventions in Go, which enhances maintainability.
23-23: Renamed Test Functions for Clarity:
The renaming of the test functionTestBaseQuantums_ToUInt64aligns with best practices for naming conventions in Go tests, making it easier to understand the test's purpose at a glance.
30-30: Comprehensive Test Coverage for SubaccountId Validation:
The testTestSubaccountId_Validatethoroughly checks various scenarios, including valid and invalid addresses and subaccount numbers. This is crucial for ensuring the robustness of subaccount ID validation logic.
80-80: Testing Error Handling with Panics:
The testTestSubaccountId_MustGetAccAccountappropriately checks for panics in scenarios where the subaccount ID is not valid, ensuring that the system robustly handles error conditions.
118-118: Deep Copy Test Ensures Integrity:
The addition ofTestSubaccount_DeepCopyis crucial for ensuring that the deep copy functionality works as expected, preserving the integrity of data across operations that involve copying subaccount structures.
126-126: Test Coverage for Getting Perpetual Positions:
The testTestSubaccount_GetPerpetualPositionForIdeffectively ensures that perpetual positions can be retrieved correctly and handles cases where the position does not exist, which is vital for the reliability of the subaccount management system.
154-154: Comprehensive Testing of Quote Balance Retrieval:
The testTestSubaccount_GetUsdcPositioncovers various scenarios, including edge cases like nil subaccounts and subaccounts without asset positions. This comprehensive testing is essential for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the balance retrieval functionality.
211-211: Robust Testing of Quote Balance Setting:
The testTestSubaccount_SetUsdcAssetPositionprovides extensive coverage for setting the USD Coin position in various scenarios, including edge cases of balance overflows. This is critical for ensuring that the system handles these operations without errors.protocol/daemons/liquidation/client/sub_task_runner.go (1)
310-310: Direct Use of Settled Subaccount in Risk Calculation:
The functionCheckSubaccountCollateralizationnow directly uses the settled subaccount for risk calculation, simplifying the flow and ensuring consistency in how subaccount data is processed across different parts of the system.protocol/x/subaccounts/lib/updates.go (4)
238-238: Introduction of CalculateUpdatedAssetPositions Function:
TheCalculateUpdatedAssetPositionsfunction is a significant addition that enhances the clarity and modularity of asset position updates. By using a deep copy and applying updates explicitly, it prevents unintended side effects on the original data structures.
276-276: Introduction of CalculateUpdatedPerpetualPositions Function:
TheCalculateUpdatedPerpetualPositionsfunction, similar to its asset counterpart, provides a clear and isolated way to apply updates to perpetual positions. This addition is crucial for maintaining data integrity and simplifying the update logic.
317-317: New Function for Subaccount Updates:
TheCalculateUpdatedSubaccountfunction consolidates updates to both asset and perpetual positions into a single, coherent operation. This structured approach enhances the maintainability and readability of the code related to subaccount updates.
344-344: Refined Risk Calculation Logic:
The refactoring of theGetRiskForSubaccountfunction to focus solely on the settled subaccount streamlines the risk assessment process, making it more straightforward and less prone to errors.protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount.go (2)
684-687: Ensure accuracy and efficiency in risk calculationThis method calculates the updated subaccount state and then retrieves the risk associated with that state. It's essential that the calculations here are both accurate and efficient, given they directly impact the system's financial assessments.
Consider adding more detailed comments explaining each step of the process, especially how the perpetual information influences the risk calculations. This would aid future maintainers or auditors in understanding the logic without digging through multiple function calls.
+ // Calculate the updated subaccount state based on the given updates and perpetual information. + // This state is then used to assess the risk, ensuring that the subaccount meets all financial requirements.
Line range hint
604-628: Check the error handling and logic in collateralization checksThis block of code is responsible for updating the subaccount based on the latest updates and then checking if the new state of the subaccount meets the initial collateralization requirements. If not, it checks the current state to determine if the transition is valid.
The logic here is critical for ensuring the financial integrity of the system, but it seems complex and could benefit from some refactoring for clarity. Additionally, ensure that all possible errors from
proto.Marshalandsalib.GetRiskForSubaccountare handled appropriately to avoid runtime panics or unhandled exceptions.Verification successful
Check the error handling and logic in collateralization checks
The error handling for both
proto.Marshalandsalib.GetRiskForSubaccountis implemented correctly. The code appropriately checks for errors and returns them when they occur, ensuring that no runtime panics or unhandled exceptions will happen due to these functions.
proto.Marshalerror handling is present and returns an error ifproto.Marshalfails.salib.GetRiskForSubaccounterror handling is consistently applied across all instances, returning an error if the function fails.Thus, the error handling and logic in the collateralization checks appear to be robust and well-implemented.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify error handling paths by simulating different failure scenarios in unit tests. # Test: Check if all error paths are covered in unit tests. rg --type go 'salib.GetRiskForSubaccount' 'protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount.go' --context 5Length of output: 957
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify error handling for `proto.Marshal` and `salib.GetRiskForSubaccount` in the specified code block. # Check error handling for `proto.Marshal` rg 'proto.Marshal' -A 5 protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount.go # Check error handling for `salib.GetRiskForSubaccount` rg 'salib.GetRiskForSubaccount' -A 5 protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount.goLength of output: 646
protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount_test.go (4)
5662-5679: Ensure accurate processing of simultaneous asset and perpetual updates.The test case "multiple asset updates for the same position" and "multiple perpetual updates for the same position" involves complex interactions between different types of updates. It's crucial to verify that the test accurately reflects the expected outcomes and that all edge cases are covered.
4830-4831: Validate handling of multiple independent updates for the same account.The test setup for "multiple updates are considered independently for same account" is crucial for ensuring robustness in update logic. It's important to verify that the test accurately checks for non-interference among updates.
Verification successful
Validate handling of multiple independent updates for the same account.
The test setup for "multiple updates are considered independently for same account" includes assertions that verify the expected outcomes for each update, ensuring non-interference among updates.
- Assertions such as
require.Equal(t, tc.expectedSuccessPerUpdate, successPerUpdate)andrequire.Equal(t, tc.expectedSuccess, success)confirm that the test checks for non-interference.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify if the test for independent updates checks for non-interference among updates. # Test: Search for assertions in the test case. Expect: Assertions that confirm non-interference. rg --type go --context 5 'multiple updates are considered independently for same account' protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount_test.goLength of output: 567
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify if the test for independent updates checks for non-interference among updates by searching for assertions within the test case. # Test: Search for assertions in the test case related to "multiple updates are considered independently for same account". rg --type go --context 10 '"multiple updates are considered independently for same account"' protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount_test.goLength of output: 835
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify if the test for independent updates checks for non-interference among updates by searching for assertions within the test file. # Test: Search for common assertion patterns within the test file. rg --type go 'require\.' protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount_test.goLength of output: 3195
515-550: Ensure proper handling of multiple updates for the same position.The test setup for "multiple updates for same position handled gracefully" seems to correctly simulate the scenario where multiple updates are applied to a single perpetual position. However, ensure that the test verifies not only the final state but also intermediate states if necessary to fully validate the update logic.
5696-5699: Check handling of speculative updates to non-existent subaccounts.The test setup for "speculative update to non-existent subaccount" is critical for ensuring the system's robustness against invalid or speculative updates. Ensure that the test accurately checks for the appropriate handling of such cases.
Changelist
lib/updates.go:GetRiskForSubaccountnow runs on the current state of a subaccount rather than also taking in updatesApplyUpdatesToPositions()function which was confusingly named and was only used in theGetRiskForSubaccountfuncitonCalculateUpdatedSubaccountfunction which returns a deep copy of a subaccount, updated by updates. The name and functionality are clearer as it doesn't modify the passed-in struct in unexpected and inconsistent waysCalculateUpdated{Asset,Perpetual}Positions()which are cleaned-up versions of the old logic inUpdate{Asset,Perpetual}Positions()types/**goDeepCopy()methods forAssetPosition,PerpetualPosition, andSubaccountTest Plan
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
AssetPosition,PerpetualPosition, andSubaccounttypes to improve data integrity during operations.Bug Fixes
Refactor
Tests
Chores