Sumcheck: contractHandler.js #1478
Conversation
|
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 1 Skipped Deployment
|
WalkthroughThe changes involve modifications to the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
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 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 (3)
packages/actions/src/Contract/contractHandler.js (3)
55-57: Approved: Improved address loggingThe change to convert
params.toto a string in the debug log statement is a good improvement. It ensures consistent representation of the address in the log output.For consistency, consider applying the same
toString()conversion to thecontractandprecompileproperties in the debug object as well.
65-66: Approved: Enhanced error message clarityThe change to convert
params.toto a string in the error message is a good improvement. It ensures consistent representation of the address in error outputs.Consider enhancing the error handling further by including more context in the error message. For example:
message: `Contract at address ${params.to.toString()} does not exist. Please check the address and ensure it's deployed.`,This provides more guidance to users encountering this error.
Line range hint
1-168: Suggestion: Implement address checksummingWhile the changes improve the string representation of addresses in logs and error messages, they don't explicitly implement checksumming as mentioned in the PR objectives (issue #1465). Consider using a checksumming function to ensure addresses are properly formatted.
You could implement this by creating a utility function:
import { getAddress } from '@ethersproject/address'; function toChecksumAddress(address) { return getAddress(address); }Then use this function when converting addresses to strings:
to: toChecksumAddress(params.to),This would ensure that addresses are consistently checksummed throughout the codebase.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/actions/src/Contract/contractHandler.js (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/actions/src/Contract/contractHandler.js (1)
Line range hint
1-168: Summary: Improved address handling, but checksumming not fully implementedThe changes in this PR improve the handling of addresses in logs and error messages by consistently converting them to strings. This enhances the clarity of debug outputs and error messages. However, the primary objective of ensuring addresses are checksummed (as per issue #1465) is not fully addressed.
Key points:
- Address string conversion is now consistent in logs and error messages.
- Error messages provide clearer context about non-existent contracts.
- The core functionality of
contractHandlerremains intact.To fully meet the PR objectives, consider implementing explicit checksumming of addresses as suggested in the previous comment.
To ensure no unintended changes were introduced, please run the existing test suite for this module.
|
Wrong commit was pushed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/actions/src/utils/toChecksumAddress.js (2)
19-20: LGTM: Keccak-256 hashing is correctly implemented.The use of
keccak256andstringToHexfrom@tevm/utilsis appropriate, and the hashing process follows the EIP-55 specification.Consider using
constinstead ofletfor thehashvariable as it's not reassigned:const hash = keccak256(stringToHex(addressLower));🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 20-20: This let declares a variable that is only assigned once.
'hash' is never reassigned.
Safe fix: Use const instead.
(lint/style/useConst)
1-41: Overall assessment: Function implements EIP-55 correctly with room for improvements.The
toChecksumAddressfunction successfully implements the EIP-55 checksum address algorithm, addressing the issue mentioned in PR #1478 and the linked issue #1465. It ensures that addresses are properly checksummed, which was the main objective of this PR.Key points:
- The core logic correctly implements the checksum algorithm.
- Input validation can be enhanced for better robustness.
- Some optimizations can be made for efficiency and type safety.
These improvements will further enhance the reliability and performance of the function without altering its core functionality.
Consider adding unit tests to verify the function's behavior with various input types and edge cases. This will ensure the function remains correct as the codebase evolves.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 20-20: This let declares a variable that is only assigned once.
'hash' is never reassigned.
Safe fix: Use const instead.
(lint/style/useConst)
[error] 29-29: Use Number.parseInt instead of the equivalent global.
ES2015 moved some globals into the Number namespace for consistency.
Safe fix: Use Number.parseInt instead.(lint/style/useNumberNamespace)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- packages/actions/src/Contract/contractHandler.js (3 hunks)
- packages/actions/src/utils/toChecksumAddress.js (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/actions/src/Contract/contractHandler.js
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome
packages/actions/src/utils/toChecksumAddress.js
[error] 20-20: This let declares a variable that is only assigned once.
'hash' is never reassigned.
Safe fix: Use const instead.
(lint/style/useConst)
[error] 29-29: Use Number.parseInt instead of the equivalent global.
ES2015 moved some globals into the Number namespace for consistency.
Safe fix: Use Number.parseInt instead.(lint/style/useNumberNamespace)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
packages/actions/src/utils/toChecksumAddress.js (2)
1-7: LGTM: Imports and function signature are well-defined.The imports from '@tevm/utils' are appropriate for the function's purpose. The use of JSDoc comments for parameter and return type documentation is a good practice. The function signature with type assertion for the parameter enhances type safety.
38-41: LGTM: Function return is correct.The return statement is straightforward and correctly returns the constructed checksum address.
| if (!address) { | ||
| throw new Error('Invalid address provided'); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| let addressLower=address.toLowerCase().replace(/^0x/, ''); | ||
| if(!addressLower){ | ||
| addressLower='0x'; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance input validation for robustness.
While the current input validation catches falsy values, it could be more robust:
- Check if the input is a string.
- Validate the address format (correct length, valid hexadecimal characters).
- Consider using a regular expression for format validation.
Here's a suggested improvement:
if (typeof address !== 'string' || !/^(0x)?[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$/.test(address)) {
throw new Error('Invalid Ethereum address format');
}
let addressLower = address.toLowerCase().replace(/^0x/, '');
if (!addressLower) {
addressLower = '0x';
}This change ensures that the input is a string and matches the expected Ethereum address format before processing.
| // Iterate over each character of the address and the corresponding hash | ||
| let checksumAddress = '0x'; | ||
| for (let i = 0; i < addressLower.length; i++) { | ||
| if(hash[i]){ | ||
|
|
||
| // @ts-ignore | ||
| if (parseInt(hash[i], 16) >= 8) { | ||
| // @ts-ignore | ||
| checksumAddress += addressLower[i].toUpperCase(); | ||
| } else { | ||
| checksumAddress += addressLower[i]; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve checksum address construction and type handling.
The logic for constructing the checksum address is correct, but there are a few areas for improvement:
- Replace
@ts-ignorewith proper type handling. - Use
Number.parseIntinstead ofparseIntas suggested by the static analysis. - Consider using
Bufferfor more efficient byte manipulation.
Here's a suggested improvement:
const checksumAddress = '0x' + Buffer.from(addressLower)
.map((char, i) => {
const charCode = char < 97 ? char - 48 : char - 87;
return Number.parseInt(hash[i], 16) > 7 ? char.toString().toUpperCase() : char.toString();
})
.join('');This change eliminates the need for @ts-ignore, uses Number.parseInt, and potentially improves performance by using Buffer.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 29-29: Use Number.parseInt instead of the equivalent global.
ES2015 moved some globals into the Number namespace for consistency.
Safe fix: Use Number.parseInt instead.(lint/style/useNumberNamespace)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/actions/src/utils/toChecksumAddress.js (2)
3-7: Enhance JSDoc comment for better documentation.The current JSDoc comment provides basic information about the function's parameter and return type. However, it could be more descriptive to improve code documentation.
Consider expanding the JSDoc comment as follows:
/** * Converts an Ethereum address to its checksum format. * @param {string} address - The Ethereum address to convert (with or without '0x' prefix). * @returns {string} The checksummed Ethereum address. * @throws {Error} If the input is not a valid Ethereum address format. */This enhanced comment provides more context about the function's purpose and behavior.
20-20: Use const for variables that are not reassigned.The static analysis tool correctly points out that the
hashvariable is only assigned once and never reassigned.Change the declaration of
hashfromlettoconst:- let hash = keccak256(stringToHex(addressLower)); + const hash = keccak256(stringToHex(addressLower));This change improves code clarity by indicating that
hashis not meant to be reassigned.🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 20-20: This let declares a variable that is only assigned once.
'hash' is never reassigned.
Safe fix: Use const instead.
(lint/style/useConst)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/actions/src/utils/toChecksumAddress.js (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome
packages/actions/src/utils/toChecksumAddress.js
[error] 23-37: Template literals are preferred over string concatenation.
Unsafe fix: Use a template literal.
(lint/style/useTemplate)
[error] 31-35: This else clause can be omitted because previous branches break early.
Unsafe fix: Omit the else clause.
(lint/style/noUselessElse)
[error] 33-35: This else clause can be omitted because previous branches break early.
(lint/style/noUselessElse)
[error] 20-20: This let declares a variable that is only assigned once.
'hash' is never reassigned.
Safe fix: Use const instead.
(lint/style/useConst)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/actions/src/utils/toChecksumAddress.js (1)
9-11: LGTM: Robust input validation implemented.The input validation has been significantly improved:
- It checks if the input is a string.
- It validates the address format using a regular expression.
- It throws a clear error message for invalid inputs.
This implementation addresses the suggestions from the previous review and enhances the function's robustness.
| const checksumAddress = '0x' + Array.from(addressLower) | ||
| .map((char, i) => { | ||
| const charCode = char.charCodeAt(0); | ||
| // @ts-ignore | ||
| const shouldUpperCase = Number.parseInt(hash[i], 16) > 7; | ||
|
|
||
| if (charCode >= 48 && charCode <= 57) { // '0'-'9' | ||
| return char; // Numbers remain unchanged | ||
| } else if (charCode >= 97 && charCode <= 102) { // 'a'-'f' | ||
| return shouldUpperCase ? char.toUpperCase() : char; | ||
| } else { | ||
| throw new Error(`Invalid character ${char} in address.`); | ||
| } | ||
| }) | ||
| .join(''); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refine checksum address construction for better readability and type safety.
The checksum address construction logic is correct, but there are a few areas for improvement:
- Use template literals as suggested by the static analysis tool.
- Remove the
@ts-ignorecomment by using proper typing. - Consider using
Bufferfor more efficient byte manipulation, as suggested in a previous review.
Here's a suggested improvement:
const checksumAddress = `0x${Buffer.from(addressLower).map((char, i) => {
const charCode = char < 97 ? char - 48 : char - 87;
return parseInt(hash[i * 2 + 2], 16) > 7 ? char.toString(16).toUpperCase() : char.toString(16);
}).join('')}`;This change:
- Uses template literals for better readability.
- Eliminates the need for
@ts-ignoreby usingBuffer. - Potentially improves performance by using
Buffer. - Simplifies the logic by using the numeric values of characters directly.
Note: If you decide not to use Buffer, at least consider removing the @ts-ignore comment and properly typing the hash variable:
const hash: string = keccak256(stringToHex(addressLower));This will improve type safety without needing the comment.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 23-37: Template literals are preferred over string concatenation.
Unsafe fix: Use a template literal.
(lint/style/useTemplate)
[error] 31-35: This else clause can be omitted because previous branches break early.
Unsafe fix: Omit the else clause.
(lint/style/noUselessElse)
[error] 33-35: This else clause can be omitted because previous branches break early.
(lint/style/noUselessElse)
| let addressLower=address.toLowerCase().replace(/^0x/, ''); | ||
| if(!addressLower){ | ||
| addressLower='0x'; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider removing unnecessary empty string check.
The input validation on lines 9-11 ensures that the address is a valid Ethereum address format. Therefore, the check for an empty string after preprocessing (lines 15-17) is unnecessary.
Consider simplifying this part of the code:
let addressLower = address.toLowerCase().replace(/^0x/, '');
-if (!addressLower) {
- addressLower = '0x';
-}This change will make the code more concise without affecting its functionality, as the input validation guarantees a non-empty valid address.
📝 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.
| let addressLower=address.toLowerCase().replace(/^0x/, ''); | |
| if(!addressLower){ | |
| addressLower='0x'; | |
| } | |
| let addressLower=address.toLowerCase().replace(/^0x/, ''); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is still not correct. It's not addressing any of the major places we care about this (moreso in return types not log messages) and it's using a bespoketoChecksumAddress rather than the built in checksumming that already exists in the tevm/address package
join telegram if you want more guidance
Description
Concise description of proposed changes
Closes #1465
Testing
Explain the quality checks that have been done on the code changes
Additional Information
Your ENS/address:
0x00655ABFA67C746F1b4F6DDD86Cf762b0D36DE07
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Chores