feat: merge dev into main #378
Conversation
…ger` to chain-ops
* feat: add withdraw method for validator * feat: apply PR reviews * feat: review applied * feat: review applied * feat: review applied
* fix crossdomainmessenger.go * fix types.go * fix README.md * fix withdrawal.go * fix status.go * fix flags_test.go * Update kroma-chain-ops/README.md Co-authored-by: seolaoh <osa8361@gmail.com> * Update types.go * Update withdrawal.go * Update kroma-validator/challenge/status.go Co-authored-by: Hansol Lee <38912532+0xHansLee@users.noreply.github.com> * Update flags_test.go * Update kroma-bindings/bindings/crossdomainmessenger.go --------- Co-authored-by: seolaoh <osa8361@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Hansol Lee <38912532+0xHansLee@users.noreply.github.com>
* feat: remove dup checks in the process of register * feat: update subcommands for validator system v2 * feat: update README for validator system v2 * feat: apply PR reviews
* feat: move termination index from config to each component * feat(contracts): add function that returns total validator balance * feat: add check for bond amount at validator system v2 * feat: apply PR reviews * feat: apply PR reviews
* fix(contracts): avoid divide by zero of kgh num * test(contracts): modify `Colosseum` tests related to V2 * feat(contracts): apply PR reviews * test(contracts): use delegator of common test in `AssetManager` tests * test(contracts): apply PR reviews
* test: fix validator manager contract tests * feat: review applied * feat: review applied * feat: review applied * feat: move revertSlash test
* chore(contracts): update bindings and snapshot * feat(contracts): modify deploy scripts * refac(contracts): reduce local vars in `Colosseum` to reduce code size * chore(chain-ops): set `ValidatorPool` termination index to 10 in devnet
* feat(validator): assert output submission condition before submit tx * test(validator): modify e2e tests related to V2
* fix(validator): disable validator to be turned on without V2 * feat(validator): improve bond log * refac(contracts): remove input argument of `tryUnjail`
… of SC (#370) * fix(contracts): avoid overflow error during calculating output reward of SC * feat(contracts): add replaced output submitter to event * feat(contracts): check jail period expired when a validator withdraws * chore(contracts): update bindings and snapshots
* feat(contracts): remove the comment that implies bond amount change * feat(contracts): save deleted output and enhance check when dismiss challenge * feat(contracts): restrict contract address cannot call `registerValidator` * feat(contracts): remove meaningless unchecked block * feat(contracts): add sanity checks for `BalancedWeightTree` * chore(contracts): update bindings and snapshots * feat: apply contract interface changes to client code * feat(contracts): apply PR review
…ystem-v2 feat: implement KRO-based validator system
WalkthroughThe changes involve updates across multiple files in a blockchain-related project, including version upgrades for the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant ValidatorManager
participant AssetManager
participant L2Validator
User->>ValidatorManager: Request to delegate assets
ValidatorManager->>AssetManager: Process delegation
AssetManager-->>ValidatorManager: Confirm delegation
ValidatorManager-->>User: Confirmation of delegation
sequenceDiagram
participant L2Validator
participant L2OutputOracle
participant User
User->>L2Validator: Submit output
L2Validator->>L2OutputOracle: Validate output
L2OutputOracle-->>L2Validator: Output valid
L2Validator-->>User: Confirmation of output submission
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: 9
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (8)
op-e2e/e2eutils/wait/transactions.go (2)
15-52: Consider adding logging statements for better tracing and debugging.The function could benefit from additional logging statements at key points such as:
- After retrieving the nonce
- After constructing and signing the transaction
- After sending the transaction
- After receiving the transaction receipt
This will help with tracing the execution flow and debugging issues if any.
29-31: Consider replacing magic numbers with constants or configuration variables.The magic numbers used for gas tip cap (
10), gas fee cap (200), and gas limit (21000) could be replaced with constants or configuration variables. This will make the code more readable and maintainable.For example:
const ( DefaultGasTipCap = 10 DefaultGasFeeCap = 200 DefaultGasLimit = 21000 )Then use these constants in the transaction construction:
- GasTipCap: big.NewInt(10), + GasTipCap: big.NewInt(DefaultGasTipCap), - GasFeeCap: big.NewInt(200), + GasFeeCap: big.NewInt(DefaultGasFeeCap), - Gas: 21000, + Gas: DefaultGasLimit,kroma-validator/cmd/README.md (1)
70-70: Consider using "ensure" instead of "make sure" to strengthen the wording.The static analysis tool suggests using a different verb, such as "ensure", to strengthen the wording instead of "make sure". While "make sure" is grammatically correct, using a stronger verb like "ensure" can improve the clarity and emphasis of the statement.
Please consider applying the following change:
-registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of the withdraw account safe, since it cannot be +registration. Please ensure that you keep the private key of the withdrawal account safe, since it cannot beTools
LanguageTool
[style] ~70-~70: Consider using a different verb to strengthen your wording.
Context: ...was set during the registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of t...(MAKE_SURE_ENSURE)
[grammar] ~70-~70: The word ‘withdraw’ is not a noun. Did you mean “withdrawal”?
Context: ...at you must keep the private key of the withdraw account safe, since it cannot be modifi...(PREPOSITION_VERB)
kroma-validator/cmd/validator/cmd.go (2)
22-70: Suggestions for improvement:The
Registerfunction looks good overall. Here are a few suggestions to consider:
- Add more error checking when parsing CLI flags and packing transaction data to handle potential errors gracefully.
- Use constants for flag names to avoid typos and improve maintainability.
- Add log statements at key points in the function for better tracing and debugging.
186-223: Suggestions for improvement:The
DepositKrofunction looks good overall. Here are a few suggestions to consider:
- Add more error checking when parsing CLI flags and packing transaction data to handle potential errors gracefully.
- Use constants for flag names to avoid typos and improve maintainability.
- Add log statements at key points in the function for better tracing and debugging.
kroma-bindings/bindings/l2outputoracle_more.go (1)
12-12: Storage layout updated withnextFinalizeOutputIndexand type change forl2Outputs.The JSON structure representing the storage layout of the
L2OutputOraclecontract has been updated:
- A new entry for
nextFinalizeOutputIndexhas been added, which suggests that the contract now tracks the index of the next output to be finalized. This addition enhances the contract's functionality by allowing for more precise management of output states.- The type for the
l2Outputsfield has been updated fromt_array(t_struct(CheckpointOutput)1005_storage)dyn_storagetot_array(t_struct(CheckpointOutput)1006_storage)dyn_storage, indicating a change in the underlying structure or versioning of theCheckpointOutputtype. This change may impact how the contract interacts with and manages thel2Outputsdata.Consider adding comments or documentation to clarify the purpose and implications of these changes, especially regarding the new
nextFinalizeOutputIndexfield and the updatedCheckpointOutputtype.packages/contracts/contracts/L1/interfaces/IValidatorManager.sol (1)
213-256: Add documentation for the custom errors.Each custom error has a clear name indicating the error condition. However, it would be helpful to add a brief comment for each error explaining when it is thrown. This will make it easier for developers to understand and handle the errors appropriately.
For example:
/** * @notice Reverts when caller is not allowed. */ error NotAllowedCaller();kroma-bindings/bindings/mintmanager.go (1)
38-44: UseMintManagerMetaData.ABIandMintManagerMetaData.Bininstead.The
MintManagerABIandMintManagerBinvariables are deprecated. UseMintManagerMetaData.ABIandMintManagerMetaData.Bininstead.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (36)
funding.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonkroma-bindings/artifacts.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonkroma-chain-ops/genesis/testdata/allocs-l1.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonkroma-chain-ops/genesis/testdata/deploy.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonkroma-chain-ops/genesis/testdata/l1-deployments.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonkroma-chain-ops/genesis/testdata/test-deploy-config-devnet-l1.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonkroma-chain-ops/genesis/testdata/test-deploy-config-full.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonops-devnet/docker-compose.ymlis excluded by!**/*.ymlpackage.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deploy-config/devnetL1-template.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deploy-config/mainnet.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deploy-config/sepolia.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kroma/GovernanceToken.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kroma/GovernanceTokenProxy.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kroma/MintManager.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kroma/solcInputs/1cc21f973aa4cfc73d832518987f54f8.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kroma/solcInputs/37a0cebac478897ae0c20446c8a2494a.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kromaSepolia/GovernanceToken.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kromaSepolia/GovernanceTokenProxy.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kromaSepolia/MintManager.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kromaSepolia/solcInputs/1cc21f973aa4cfc73d832518987f54f8.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/kromaSepolia/solcInputs/37a0cebac478897ae0c20446c8a2494a.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/mainnet/L1GovernanceToken.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/mainnet/L1GovernanceTokenProxy.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/mainnet/L1MintManager.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/mainnet/ZKVerifier.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/mainnet/solcInputs/1cc21f973aa4cfc73d832518987f54f8.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/mainnet/solcInputs/37a0cebac478897ae0c20446c8a2494a.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/sepolia/L1GovernanceToken.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/sepolia/L1GovernanceTokenProxy.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/sepolia/L1MintManager.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/sepolia/solcInputs/1cc21f973aa4cfc73d832518987f54f8.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/contracts/deployments/sepolia/solcInputs/37a0cebac478897ae0c20446c8a2494a.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/sdk/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/sdk/tsconfig.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml,!**/*.yaml
Files selected for processing (67)
- .github/workflows/ci.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (2 hunks)
- Makefile (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/assetmanager_more.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/colosseum_more.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/governancetoken_more.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/l2outputoracle.go (9 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/l2outputoracle_more.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/mintmanager.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/mintmanager_more.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/validatormanager_more.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/validatorpool.go (5 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/validatorpool_more.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/bindings/zkverifier_more.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-bindings/predeploys/addresses.go (3 hunks)
- kroma-chain-ops/README.md (1 hunks)
- kroma-chain-ops/genesis/config.go (13 hunks)
- kroma-chain-ops/genesis/config_test.go (2 hunks)
- kroma-chain-ops/genesis/layer_one.go (5 hunks)
- kroma-chain-ops/genesis/layer_one_test.go (2 hunks)
- kroma-chain-ops/genesis/layer_two_test.go (2 hunks)
- kroma-chain-ops/immutables/immutables.go (2 hunks)
- kroma-chain-ops/immutables/immutables_test.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-devnet/devnet/init.py (2 hunks)
- kroma-validator/abi_test.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-validator/challenge/status.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-validator/challenger.go (18 hunks)
- kroma-validator/cmd/README.md (1 hunks)
- kroma-validator/cmd/main.go (2 hunks)
- kroma-validator/cmd/validator/cmd.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-validator/cmd/validator/flags.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-validator/config.go (11 hunks)
- kroma-validator/event.go (2 hunks)
- kroma-validator/flags/flags.go (5 hunks)
- kroma-validator/guardian.go (16 hunks)
- kroma-validator/l2_output_submitter.go (15 hunks)
- kroma-validator/metrics/metrics.go (6 hunks)
- kroma-validator/metrics/noop.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-validator/status.go (1 hunks)
- kroma-validator/validator.go (4 hunks)
- op-e2e/actions/l1_miner.go (1 hunks)
- op-e2e/actions/l2_challenger.go (1 hunks)
- op-e2e/actions/l2_challenger_test.go (16 hunks)
- op-e2e/actions/l2_runtime.go (7 hunks)
- op-e2e/actions/l2_validator.go (5 hunks)
- op-e2e/actions/l2_validator_test.go (3 hunks)
- op-e2e/actions/user_test.go (4 hunks)
- op-e2e/bridge_test.go (2 hunks)
- op-e2e/config/init.go (2 hunks)
- op-e2e/e2eutils/geth/wait.go (2 hunks)
- op-e2e/e2eutils/secrets.go (9 hunks)
- op-e2e/e2eutils/setup.go (8 hunks)
- op-e2e/e2eutils/setup_test.go (1 hunks)
- op-e2e/e2eutils/validator/validator.go (1 hunks)
- op-e2e/e2eutils/wait/transactions.go (1 hunks)
- op-e2e/setup.go (18 hunks)
- op-e2e/system_test.go (8 hunks)
- packages/contracts/.gas-snapshot (3 hunks)
- packages/contracts/.storage-layout (5 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/AssetManager.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/Colosseum.sol (34 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/L2OutputOracle.sol (17 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/ValidatorManager.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/ValidatorPool.sol (9 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/ZKMerkleTrie.sol (2 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/interfaces/IAssetManager.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/interfaces/IValidatorManager.sol (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (11)
- Makefile
- kroma-bindings/bindings/assetmanager_more.go
- kroma-bindings/bindings/mintmanager_more.go
- kroma-bindings/bindings/validatormanager_more.go
- kroma-bindings/predeploys/addresses.go
- kroma-chain-ops/README.md
- kroma-chain-ops/immutables/immutables_test.go
- kroma-validator/challenge/status.go
- kroma-validator/status.go
- op-e2e/e2eutils/geth/wait.go
- packages/contracts/contracts/L1/ZKMerkleTrie.sol
Additional context used
LanguageTool
kroma-validator/cmd/README.md
[uncategorized] ~29-~29: ‘Amount of’ should usually only be used with uncountable or mass nouns. Consider using “number” if this is not the case.
Context: ...---amount [value]- (Required) The amount of tokens to deposit initially (in Wei)...(AMOUNTOF_TO_NUMBEROF)
[uncategorized] ~63-~63: ‘Amount of’ should usually only be used with uncountable or mass nouns. Consider using “number” if this is not the case.
Context: ...---amount [value]- (Required) The amount of tokens to deposit (in Wei). ```ba...(AMOUNTOF_TO_NUMBEROF)
[grammar] ~69-~69: The word ‘withdraw’ is not a noun. Did you mean “withdrawal”?
Context: ... asset and reward must be done with the withdraw account that was set during the registr...(PREPOSITION_VERB)
[style] ~70-~70: Consider using a different verb to strengthen your wording.
Context: ...was set during the registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of t...(MAKE_SURE_ENSURE)
[grammar] ~70-~70: The word ‘withdraw’ is not a noun. Did you mean “withdrawal”?
Context: ...at you must keep the private key of the withdraw account safe, since it cannot be modifi...(PREPOSITION_VERB)
golangci-lint
op-e2e/actions/l2_validator.go
188-188: ineffectual assignment to err
(ineffassign)
op-e2e/actions/l2_runtime.go
115-115: func
(*Runtime).setupMaliciousChallenger1is unused(unused)
119-119: func
(*Runtime).setupMaliciousChallenger2is unused(unused)
op-e2e/actions/l2_challenger_test.go
509-509: SA4006: this value of
slashingAmountis never used(staticcheck)
op-e2e/system_test.go
1781-1781: ineffectual assignment to err
(ineffassign)
Additional comments not posted (310)
kroma-validator/cmd/validator/flags.go (5)
7-11: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
13-17: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
19-23: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
25-29: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
31-35: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
kroma-validator/metrics/noop.go (2)
24-24: LGTM!The method renaming aligns with the AI-generated summary, indicating a shift in focus to specifically unbonded deposits. The method signature remains unchanged, ensuring compatibility with existing code that uses this method.
25-25: LGTM!The addition of the
RecordValidatorStatusmethod aligns with the AI-generated summary, suggesting an enhancement in tracking the status of validators. Theuint8parameter type is appropriate for representing a status value.op-e2e/e2eutils/setup_test.go (2)
32-32: LGTM!The code change enhances type safety by converting the balance to a
Uint64type before performing the comparison. This ensures that the comparison is made between values of the same type, potentially preventing type-related errors during testing.
35-35: LGTM!Similar to the previous change, this code change enhances type safety by converting the balance to a
Uint64type before performing the comparison. This ensures that the comparison is made between values of the same type, potentially preventing type-related errors during testing.kroma-validator/event.go (2)
19-29: LGTM!The changes to
NewChallengeCreatedEventare well-implemented and provide the following improvements:
- The updated return types (
*bindings.ColosseumChallengeCreatedanderror) provide better integration with thekroma-bindingspackage and align with Go's idiomatic error handling practices.- The new validation check for the number of log topics enhances the robustness of the event creation process by ensuring that only valid log entries are processed.
The code changes are approved.
31-44: LGTM!The changes to
NewOutputSubmittedEventare well-implemented and provide the following improvements:
- The updated return types (
*bindings.L2OutputOracleOutputSubmittedanderror) provide better integration with thekroma-bindingspackage and align with Go's idiomatic error handling practices.- The new validation check for the number of log topics enhances the robustness of the event creation process by ensuring that only valid log entries are processed.
- Using a byte array for the output root aligns with the
bindings.L2OutputOracleOutputSubmittedstruct and ensures compatibility.The code changes are approved.
op-e2e/e2eutils/wait/transactions.go (1)
15-52: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
.github/workflows/test.yml (3)
31-31: Ensure compatibility with the upgradedpnpmversion.The
pnpmversion has been upgraded from 8 to 9, which is a significant change.Please ensure that:
- The new version is compatible with the project's dependencies.
- The new version doesn't introduce any breaking changes that could potentially break the build.
You can verify the compatibility by:
- Reviewing the release notes of
pnpmversion 9 for any breaking changes or incompatibilities.- Running the build and tests locally with the new version to ensure everything works as expected.
63-63: Verify that the tests are designed to run in parallel.The environment variable
OP_E2E_DISABLE_PARALLELhas been changed fromtruetofalse, which indicates a shift in the testing strategy to allow parallel execution of end-to-end tests.While enabling parallel execution could potentially speed up the test execution time, it could also introduce new issues if the tests are not designed to run in parallel or if there are any race conditions or dependencies between the tests.
Please ensure that:
- The tests are designed to run in parallel.
- There are no race conditions or dependencies between the tests.
You can verify this by:
- Reviewing the test code to ensure that the tests are independent and can run in parallel.
- Running the tests in parallel locally to ensure that there are no failures or unexpected behavior.
Line range hint
1-65: Ensure that the tests do not rely on the removedOP_E2E_USE_CANYONenvironment variable.The environment variable
OP_E2E_USE_CANYONhas been removed entirely, which suggests a potential deprecation or a shift in the testing framework's configuration.The removal could potentially break the tests if they rely on this environment variable.
Please ensure that:
- The tests do not rely on the
OP_E2E_USE_CANYONenvironment variable.- The removal of the environment variable doesn't break the tests.
You can verify this by:
- Searching the test code for any references to the
OP_E2E_USE_CANYONenvironment variable.- Running the tests locally to ensure that there are no failures or unexpected behavior.
kroma-validator/abi_test.go (1)
36-36: Verify the impact of the additional parameter on the contract deployment and functionality.The additional parameter
common.Address{0xcc}passed to theDeployL2OutputOraclefunction may affect how the function processes its inputs and potentially its overall logic.Run the following script to verify the impact of the change:
kroma-chain-ops/genesis/layer_two_test.go (2)
58-61: Verify that simplifying theisProxycondition does not break existing functionality.The condition for determining
isProxyhas been simplified by removing the governance check:isProxy := !predeploy.ProxyDisabledThis change seems reasonable as it simplifies the condition and removes a potentially unnecessary check. However, it's important to verify that this change does not break any existing functionality or assumptions.
Please confirm that the removed governance check is no longer needed and that this simplification does not introduce any unintended consequences.
95-95: Clarify the reason for changing the expected length ofgen.Alloc.The expected length of
gen.Allochas been changed from 537 to 536:require.Equal(t, 536, len(gen.Alloc))This change indicates an adjustment in the expected allocation size, which could reflect a change in the genesis configuration or the accounts being initialized.
Please provide clarification on the reason behind this change and confirm that the new expected length aligns with the intended genesis state.
op-e2e/actions/l2_validator_test.go (2)
41-52: LGTM!The new
RunValidatorPoolTestfunction is well-structured and follows a clear sequence of steps to test the validator pool functionality. The use of the runtime context improves the readability and maintainability of the test code. The function checks for the correct submission of outputs to the validator pool, ensuring the expected behavior.
54-95: LGTM!The new
RunValidatorManagerTestfunction is well-structured and follows a clear sequence of steps to test the validator manager functionality. The use of the runtime context improves the readability and maintainability of the test code. The function includes additional steps to redeploy the validator pool with a modified termination index, which is necessary for testing the validator manager functionality. It checks for the termination status of the validator pool and ensures that outputs are submitted correctly, validating the expected behavior.kroma-validator/cmd/README.md (2)
1-105: Documentation looks great!The README file provides a clear and comprehensive overview of the
kroma-validatorsubcommands and their usage. The commands are well-organized into sections for Validator System V2 and Validator System V1 (deprecated), making it easy for users to understand the available functionality.Each command is described with its purpose, required arguments, and example usage, which will help users effectively utilize the
kroma-validatorcommand line tool.Great job on the documentation!
Tools
LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~29-~29: ‘Amount of’ should usually only be used with uncountable or mass nouns. Consider using “number” if this is not the case.
Context: ...---amount [value]- (Required) The amount of tokens to deposit initially (in Wei)...(AMOUNTOF_TO_NUMBEROF)
[uncategorized] ~63-~63: ‘Amount of’ should usually only be used with uncountable or mass nouns. Consider using “number” if this is not the case.
Context: ...---amount [value]- (Required) The amount of tokens to deposit (in Wei). ```ba...(AMOUNTOF_TO_NUMBEROF)
[grammar] ~69-~69: The word ‘withdraw’ is not a noun. Did you mean “withdrawal”?
Context: ... asset and reward must be done with the withdraw account that was set during the registr...(PREPOSITION_VERB)
[style] ~70-~70: Consider using a different verb to strengthen your wording.
Context: ...was set during the registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of t...(MAKE_SURE_ENSURE)
[grammar] ~70-~70: The word ‘withdraw’ is not a noun. Did you mean “withdrawal”?
Context: ...at you must keep the private key of the withdraw account safe, since it cannot be modifi...(PREPOSITION_VERB)
29-29: Usage of "amount of" is appropriate.The static analysis tool suggests using "number" instead of "amount of" when referring to countable nouns. However, in this context, "amount of" is used to refer to a quantity of tokens, which is typically treated as an uncountable noun.
The usage of "amount of" is appropriate here, and the static analysis hint can be safely ignored.
Also applies to: 63-63
Tools
LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~29-~29: ‘Amount of’ should usually only be used with uncountable or mass nouns. Consider using “number” if this is not the case.
Context: ...---amount [value]- (Required) The amount of tokens to deposit initially (in Wei)...(AMOUNTOF_TO_NUMBEROF)
kroma-validator/cmd/main.go (10)
7-8: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
13-13: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
34-41: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
44-47: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
48-52: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
53-69: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
70-75: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
76-82: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
83-89: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
90-102: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
op-e2e/actions/l2_challenger.go (1)
33-35: LGTM!The code changes enhance the functionality by providing a more comprehensive check before allowing the creation of a challenge. The
CanCreateChallengemethod is more specific than theHasEnoughDepositmethod, as it focuses on the challenger's ability to create a challenge rather than just their deposit status. The additional parameter,outputIndex, provides more context for the check. The error handling and the assertion ensure that any issues encountered during the check are reported appropriately.op-e2e/bridge_test.go (1)
9-13: LGTM!The changes to the import statements improve the readability and organization of the code.
.github/workflows/ci.yml (1)
44-44: LGTM! Verify compatibility of the new pnpm version.The change upgrades the
pnpmversion from8to9, which could introduce new features, improvements, or bug fixes.Please ensure that the new
pnpmversion is compatible with the project's dependencies and scripts.kroma-validator/metrics/metrics.go (4)
33-34: LGTM!The changes to the
Metricerinterface are approved. The new and renamed methods provide more granular metrics for monitoring validator operations.
50-51: LGTM!The changes to the
Metricsstruct are approved. The new and renamed fields align with the updatedMetricerinterface.
88-97: LGTM!The changes to the
NewMetricsconstructor are approved. The constructor correctly initializes the newUnbondedDepositAmountandValidatorStatusfields.
145-152: LGTM!The changes to the functions are approved. The new and modified functions provide the implementation for the updated
Metricerinterface.op-e2e/e2eutils/validator/validator.go (4)
27-61: LGTM!The
Helperstruct andNewHelperfunction are well-structured and follow Go best practices. The error handling inNewHelperis appropriate, usingrequire.NoErrorto fail the test if an error occurs.
63-73: LGTM!The
DepositToValPoolmethod follows the expected flow for sending a transaction. It appropriately handles errors and waits for the transaction receipt.
75-86: LGTM!The
UnbondValPoolmethod follows the expected flow for sending a transaction. It appropriately handles errors, waits for the transaction receipt, and returns the transaction status, which is useful for checking the success of the unbond operation.
88-97: LGTM!The
ApproveAssetTokenmethod follows the expected flow for sending a transaction. It appropriately handles errors and waits for the transaction receipt.op-e2e/config/init.go (1)
130-130: LGTM!The new configuration parameter
ValidatorManagerRoundDurationSecondsis a valid addition to theDeployConfigstruct. The calculation of the value is correct and consistent with the existing parameters.kroma-chain-ops/genesis/layer_one_test.go (2)
15-21: LGTM!The reorganization of the import statements and the addition of the
requirepackage improve the readability and follow common practices in Go tests.
64-67: Great addition to enhance the test coverage!Retrieving the
ValidatorManageraddress usingoracle.VALIDATORMANAGER(callOpts)and validating it against the expectedValidatorManagerProxyaddress from the deployments is a crucial check. It ensures that theValidatorManageris correctly instantiated and its address matches the expected value, which is important for the integrity of the genesis block construction process.kroma-chain-ops/genesis/config_test.go (1)
117-120: LGTM!The added assertions improve the test coverage by validating the presence of new deployment addresses (
AssetManager,AssetManagerProxy,ValidatorManager, andValidatorManagerProxy). The changes are consistent with the provided summary and look good to me.kroma-validator/flags/flags.go (3)
61-66: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
67-72: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
131-136: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
kroma-validator/validator.go (3)
111-116: LGTM!The conditional creation of the
Challengerinstance based on the configuration flagsOutputSubmitterEnabledandChallengerEnabledallows for a more flexible initialization, only creating it when necessary.
150-153: LGTM!The added checks for the existence of various components (
TxManager,l2os,challenger, andguardian) before attempting to start them in theStartmethod of theValidatorstruct improve the robustness of the code by avoiding unnecessary calls to methods on uninitialized objects.Also applies to: 156-159, 162-165, 168-171
180-183: LGTM!The added checks for the existence of various components (
TxManager,l2os,challenger, andguardian) before attempting to stop them in theStopmethod of theValidatorstruct improve the robustness of the code by avoiding unnecessary calls to methods on uninitialized objects.Also applies to: 186-189, 192-195, 198-201
op-e2e/e2eutils/secrets.go (8)
22-28: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
32-34: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
60-60: LGTM!The code change is approved.
Line range hint
111-125: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
142-142: LGTM!The code change is approved.
169-169: LGTM!The code change is approved.
202-202: LGTM!The code change is approved.
226-226: LGTM!The code change is approved.
kroma-chain-ops/genesis/layer_one.go (2)
Line range hint
110-220: LGTM!The
PostProcessL1DeveloperGenesisfunction looks good:
- It performs important genesis state updates.
- It has appropriate error handling and logging.
- It is well-structured and readable.
- Setting up the governance token balances on L1 is a nice new feature.
The code changes are approved.
Line range hint
222-233: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
op-e2e/actions/l1_miner.go (3)
232-235: LGTM!The new
ActEmptyBlockmethod is a helpful addition for creating empty blocks in tests. The code changes are approved.
238-241: LGTM!The
includeL1Blockmethod has been appropriately renamed toincludeL1BlockBySenderto improve clarity. The code changes are approved.
244-248: LGTM!The new
includeL1BlockByTxmethod is a useful addition for including blocks by transaction hash in tests. The code changes are approved.op-e2e/actions/l2_validator.go (12)
34-35: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
50-51: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
74-75: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
131-143: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
146-159: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
162-169: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
172-184: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
187-198: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Tools
golangci-lint
188-188: ineffectual assignment to err
(ineffassign)
201-205: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
208-212: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
215-219: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
222-226: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
kroma-validator/config.go (4)
34-35: LGTM!The addition of the
ValidatorManagerAddr,AssetManagerAddr, andGuardianPollIntervalfields to theConfigstruct enhances the configurability of the validator by allowing it to manage additional contract addresses and specify the polling interval for the Guardian component. The changes are consistent with the overall structure and purpose of theConfigstruct.Also applies to: 50-50
87-88: LGTM!The addition of the
ValMgrAddress,AssetManagerAddress, andGuardianPollIntervalfields to theCLIConfigstruct is necessary to allow setting the new configuration options via CLI arguments. The field names and types are consistent with the corresponding fields in theConfigstruct.Also applies to: 90-91, 117-118
161-162: LGTM!The changes to the
NewConfigfunction ensure that the new configuration optionsValMgrAddress,AssetManagerAddress, andGuardianPollIntervalcan be set via CLI arguments. The initialization of these fields from the command-line context is consistent with the existing pattern in the function.Also applies to: 176-176
210-213: LGTM!The changes to the
NewValidatorConfigfunction ensure that the new configuration optionsValMgrAddressandAssetManagerAddressare properly parsed from theCLIConfigand included in the returnedConfigobject. The error handling for parsing these addresses is consistent with the existing error handling in the function.Also applies to: 215-218, 264-265
op-e2e/actions/user_test.go (6)
8-9: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
134-134: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
141-148: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
274-274: This is a duplicate occurrence of the change reviewed in the previous comment.
Line range hint
287-287: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
263-263: Verify the impact of usingincludeL1BlockBySenderinstead ofincludeL1Block.Ensure that the change in the way blocks are processed, by including the sender's address, does not have any unintended consequences.
Run the following script to verify the usage of
includeL1BlockBySender:kroma-chain-ops/immutables/immutables.go (3)
49-51: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Line range hint
298-304: Verify theGovernanceTokendeployment in the codebase.Ensure that the removal of the
GovernanceTokendeployment logic has not affected other parts of the codebase.Run the following script to verify the
GovernanceTokendeployment:Verification successful
Removal of
GovernanceTokenDeployment Logic VerifiedThe
DeployGovernanceTokenfunction is defined but not used elsewhere in the codebase, indicating that its removal does not impact other parts of the codebase. This suggests that the function might be part of a deprecated or unused feature.
op-bindings/bindings/governancetoken.go: Definition ofDeployGovernanceToken.kroma-bindings/bindings/governancetoken.go: Definition ofDeployGovernanceToken.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the removal of the `GovernanceToken` deployment logic has not affected other parts of the codebase. # Test: Search for the `DeployGovernanceToken` function usage. Expect: No occurrences of the `DeployGovernanceToken` function. rg --type go -A 5 $'DeployGovernanceToken'Length of output: 1438
53-53: Verify theGovernanceTokenusage in the codebase.Ensure that all usages of the
GovernanceTokenfield have been updated to match the new definition.Run the following script to verify the
GovernanceTokenusage:op-e2e/e2eutils/setup.go (4)
122-123: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
133-148: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
161-176: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
271-316: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
kroma-validator/cmd/validator/cmd.go (8)
72-98: LGTM!The
Activatefunction looks good and follows the expected logic. No issues found.
100-126: LGTM!The
Unjailfunction looks good and follows the expected logic. No issues found.
128-156: LGTM!The
InitCommissionChangefunction looks good and follows the expected logic. No issues found.
158-184: LGTM!The
FinalizeCommissionChangefunction looks good and follows the expected logic. No issues found.
225-253: LGTM!The
Depositfunction looks good and follows the expected logic. No issues found.
255-288: LGTM!The
Withdrawfunction looks good and follows the expected logic. No issues found.
290-325: LGTM!The
WithdrawTofunction looks good and follows the expected logic. No issues found.
327-353: LGTM!The
Unbondfunction looks good and follows the expected logic. No issues found.op-e2e/actions/l2_runtime.go (11)
68-71: LGTM!The code changes to the
defaultRuntimefunction are approved. The additionaldeltaTimeOffsetparameter provides more flexibility in setting up the runtime environment.
99-100: LGTM!The code changes to the
setupHonestValidatorfunction are approved. The additionalsetInvalidBlockNumberparameter provides more flexibility in setting up the honest validator.
131-156: LGTM!The code changes to the
setupValidatorfunction are approved. The refactoring improves the maintainability of the code by consolidating the logic for both honest and malicious validators.
Line range hint
159-183: LGTM!The code changes to the
bindContractsfunction are approved. The additional contract bindings for validator manager, asset manager, and asset token improve the functionality of the code.
186-210: LGTM!The new
assertRedeployValPoolToTerminatefunction is approved. It improves the functionality of the code by allowing the termination index to be changed and also asserts that the deploying and upgrade transactions are successful.
213-236: LGTM!The code changes to the
setupOutputSubmittedfunction are approved. The additionalversionparameter provides more flexibility in setting up the output submission by allowing the function to deposit to the validator pool and register to the validator manager based on the version.
Line range hint
238-301: LGTM!The code changes to the
setupChallengefunction are approved. The additionalversionparameter provides more flexibility in setting up the challenge by allowing the function to check the bond amount and register to the validator manager based on the version.
303-312: LGTM!The new
depositToValPoolfunction is approved. It improves the functionality of the code by allowing a bond to be deposited for a validator.
314-329: LGTM!The new
registerToValMgrfunction is approved. It improves the functionality of the code by allowing a validator to be registered to the validator manager.
331-353: LGTM!The new
proceedWithBlocksfunction is approved. It improves the functionality of the code by allowing a specified number of blocks to be proceeded with.
355-364: LGTM!The new
submitL2Outputfunction is approved. It improves the functionality of the code by allowing an L2 output to be submitted.kroma-devnet/devnet/__init__.py (2)
156-156: LGTM!The code change is approved. Adding the
--tags setupargument provides more specificity to the deployment process.
275-312: LGTM!The code changes are approved. The changes enhance the functionality and clarity of the deployment process, particularly in relation to validator management and asset handling:
- The new variables
validator_managerandasset_managerretrieve addresses from theaddressesdictionary, ensuring that the new components are integrated into the operational environment.- The log statements provide visibility into the usage of these new components during the deployment process.
- The environment variables passed to the Docker command are updated to include
VALMGR_ADDRESSandASSETMANAGER_ADDRESS, ensuring that the new components are integrated into the operational environment.- The new command for registering with the
ValidatorManagercontract indicates a more comprehensive setup for validators within the network.packages/contracts/contracts/L1/L2OutputOracle.sol (6)
9-9: LGTM!The import statement for
IValidatorManageris correctly added.
25-29: LGTM!The
VALIDATOR_MANAGERstate variable is correctly declared as public and immutable.
Line range hint
104-135: LGTM!The constructor is correctly updated to accept and assign the
_validatorManagerparameter to theVALIDATOR_MANAGERstate variable.
Line range hint
218-284: LGTM!The
submitL2Outputfunction is correctly updated to:
- Check the validator pool termination status.
- Invoke
checkSubmissionEligibilityfromVALIDATOR_MANAGERwhen the pool is terminated.- Conditionally execute
createBondorafterSubmitL2Outputbased on the pool state.The changes enhance the contract's modularity and control flow.
286-306: LGTM!The
setNextFinalizeOutputIndexfunction is correctly implemented with:
- Access control checks to allow only the validator pool or validator manager contract to call it based on the validator pool state.
- Logic to update the
nextFinalizeOutputIndexvariable.The function enhances the contract's output finalization management.
426-435: LGTM!The
nextOutputMinL2Timestampfunction is correctly implemented to calculate the minimum L2 timestamp for the next output using thecomputeL2Timestampfunction andnextBlockNumber.The function enhances the contract's output timing management.
kroma-bindings/bindings/l2outputoracle_more.go (1)
16-16: Bytecode updated for theL2OutputOraclecontract.The
L2OutputOracleDeployedBinvariable has been updated with a new bytecode value. These changes likely reflect updates to the contract's logic or optimizations in the compiled output, which could impact how the contract operates on the Ethereum blockchain.Verify that the bytecode changes align with the intended contract behavior and do not introduce any unintended side effects. Consider reviewing the contract's source code and testing the compiled output to ensure the contract functions as expected.
Run the following script to retrieve the contract's source code and compare it with the previous version to identify the specific changes that led to the bytecode update:
Review the differences between the current and previous versions of the contract's source code to identify the specific changes that led to the bytecode update. Ensure that these changes are intentional and do not introduce any unintended behavior or vulnerabilities.
packages/contracts/contracts/L1/interfaces/IAssetManager.sol (15)
22-29: LGTM!The
Assetstruct is well-designed to capture the necessary asset information of a validator's vault. The use of uint128 for the fields is a good optimization, and the comments provide clear explanations of each field.
38-41: LGTM!The
KroDelegatorstruct is well-structured to represent a delegator of KRO in a validator's vault. The fields are appropriately typed as uint128, and the comments provide sufficient explanations.
52-56: LGTM!The
KghDelegatorstruct is well-designed to represent a delegator of KGH in a validator's vault. The fields are appropriately typed, with uint128 for reward and count, and a mapping for token-specific delegation timestamps. The comments provide clear explanations of the fields.
77-120: LGTM!The events related to deposits and delegations (
Deposited,KroDelegated,KghDelegated,KghBatchDelegated) are well-defined. They cover the necessary actions and include relevant indexed parameters for easy filtering and searching. The parameter names and types are appropriate.
122-173: LGTM!The events related to withdrawals and undelegations (
Withdrawn,KroUndelegated,KghUndelegated,KghBatchUndelegated) are well-defined. They cover the necessary actions and include relevant indexed parameters for easy filtering and searching. The parameter names and types are appropriate.
175-200: LGTM!The events related to rewards and bonding (
KghRewardClaimed,ValidatorKroBonded,ValidatorKroUnbonded) are well-defined. They cover the necessary actions and include relevant indexed parameters for easy filtering and searching. The parameter names and types are appropriate.
205-205: LGTM!The
NotAllowedCallererror is appropriately defined for the scenario when an unauthorized caller attempts to perform an action. The error message is clear and concise.
210-210: LGTM!The
ImproperValidatorStatuserror is appropriately defined for the scenario when an action is attempted with a validator in an improper status. The error message is clear and concise.
215-215: LGTM!The
NotAllowedZeroInputerror is appropriately defined for the scenario when an attempt is made to input zero. The error message is clear and concise.
220-220: LGTM!The
ZeroAddresserror is appropriately defined for the scenario when an address is the zero address. The error message is clear and concise.
225-225: LGTM!The
InsufficientAsseterror is appropriately defined for the scenario when there is insufficient asset. The error message is clear and concise.
230-230: LGTM!The
InsufficientShareerror is appropriately defined for the scenario when there is insufficient share. The error message is clear and concise.
235-235: LGTM!The
NotElapsedMinDelegationPerioderror is appropriately defined for the scenario when the minimum delegation period has not elapsed. The error message is clear and concise.
249-249: LGTM!The
getWithdrawAccountfunction is appropriately defined to retrieve the withdraw account address for a validator. The use of theviewmodifier is correct, and the parameter and return value are properly specified. The documentation provides a clear explanation of the function's purpose and behavior.
259-259: LGTM!The
canWithdrawAtfunction is appropriately defined to retrieve the timestamp when a validator can withdraw KRO. The use of theviewmodifier is correct, and the parameter and return value are properly specified. The documentation provides a clear explanation of the function, including the condition for withdrawal based on theMIN_DELEGATION_PERIOD.packages/contracts/contracts/L1/interfaces/IValidatorManager.sol (5)
7-38: LGTM!The
ValidatorStatusenum is well-defined and thoroughly documented. The enum values are self-explanatory and the conditions for each status are clearly explained in the comment.
40-73: LGTM!The
ConstructorParamsstruct is well-defined and each parameter is thoroughly documented using the@custom:fieldtag. The underscore prefix for the parameter names is a good convention to indicate they are used for initialization.
75-91: LGTM!The
Validatorstruct is well-defined and each field is thoroughly documented using the@custom:fieldtag. The field names are clear and self-explanatory.
93-212: LGTM!The events are well-defined and thoroughly documented. Each event has a clear name and its documentation explains when it is emitted and the meaning of its parameters. The
indexedkeyword is used appropriately for parameters that may be searched or filtered.
258-481: LGTM!The function declarations are well-defined and thoroughly documented using the NatSpec format. Each function has a clear name and its documentation explains its purpose, parameters, and return values. The parameter and return value names are also clear and self-explanatory.
kroma-validator/l2_output_submitter.go (10)
43-53: LGTM!The changes to the
L2OutputSubmitterstruct look good:
- The renaming of fields to adopt a consistent camel case style enhances code clarity.
- The addition of new fields for managing additional contracts and bond amounts improves the struct's capabilities.
62-65: LGTM!The changes to the
NewL2OutputSubmitterfunction look good. The initialization of the newvalMgrContractandassetMgrContractfields ensures that they are properly set up when creating a newL2OutputSubmitterinstance.Also applies to: 77-80, 82-85
Line range hint
105-141: LGTM!The changes to the
InitConfigfunction look good. The updates to fetch thevalPoolTerminationIndexand handle therequiredBondAmountV2from the asset manager contract enhance the configuration initialization process by retrieving additional necessary data.Also applies to: 149-161
224-247: LGTM!The changes to the
trySubmitL2Outputfunction look good. The addition of theoutputIndexparameter and its usage in determining if the output can be submitted based on the current validator state allows for more informed decision-making when submitting L2 outputs.
Line range hint
279-305: LGTM!The changes to the
CalculateWaitTimefunction look good. The addition of theoutputIndexparameter and its usage in fetching the current round information allows for a more accurate calculation of the wait time based on the current state of the validator.
323-377: LGTM!The changes to the
CanSubmitOutputfunction look good. The updates introduce more comprehensive checks to determine if the validator can submit an output by considering the validator's status, jail status, and balance based on the termination status of the validator pool. These changes enhance the accuracy and reliability of the output submission process.
Line range hint
475-519: LGTM!The changes to the
fetchCurrentRoundfunction look good. The addition of theoutputIndexparameter and the updated logic to retrieve the next validator address from either theValidatorPoolorValidatorManagercontracts based on the termination status of the validator pool enhance the flexibility and accuracy of fetching the current round information.
Line range hint
555-593: LGTM!The changes to the
submitL2OutputTxfunction look good. The addition of theoutputIndexparameter and the updated logic to determine the appropriate contract (ValidatorManagerorValidatorPool) and storage slots based on the termination status of the validator pool ensure that the L2 output transaction is submitted to the correct contract and accesses the necessary storage slots. These changes enhance the accuracy and reliability of the L2 output submission process.
636-637: LGTM!The change to the function name from
L2ooAbitoL2OOAbilooks good. It improves code consistency and readability by adopting a consistent naming convention.
424-447: LGTM!The addition of the
IsValPoolTerminated,GetValidatorStatus, andIsInJailfunctions looks good. These functions encapsulate the logic related to the validator's state and its ability to submit outputs, providing a cleaner and more modular way to check the validator pool termination status, retrieve the validator's status, and check if the validator is in jail. This improves code organization and maintainability.packages/contracts/contracts/L1/ValidatorPool.sol (8)
75-79: LGTM!The addition of the
TERMINATE_OUTPUT_INDEXstate variable is a significant enhancement that provides a clear mechanism for determining when deposits are no longer allowed and the validator system is upgraded to ValidatorManager.
182-184: LGTM!Updating the version to "1.1.0" is appropriate given the significant changes introduced in this contract.
Line range hint
189-206: LGTM!The changes to the constructor are necessary to initialize the new
TERMINATE_OUTPUT_INDEXstate variable. The parameter list and documentation have been updated accordingly.
230-237: LGTM!The additional requirement in the
depositfunction is a crucial change that enforces the termination logic by preventing deposits after theTERMINATE_OUTPUT_INDEX. This change enhances the contract's control flow and lifecycle management.
418-421: LGTM!Setting the next output index to be finalized in
L2OutputOracleafter unbonding is a logical step that ensures theL2OutputOracleis updated with the latest state of theValidatorPool.
542-545: LGTM!The reformatting of the
getPendingBondfunction improves the code's readability and maintainability without altering its functionality.
Line range hint
596-609: LGTM!The reformatting of the code segment in the
nextValidatorfunction improves the code's readability and maintainability without altering its functionality.
611-620: LGTM!The addition of the
isTerminatedfunction enhances the contract's usability by providing a straightforward way to assess the state of theValidatorPoolin relation to its termination criteria. This change aligns with the overall objective of managing the lifecycle of theValidatorPool.kroma-bindings/bindings/validatorpool_more.go (1)
16-16: Significant update to theValidatorPoolcontract bytecode.This change updates the deployed bytecode of the
ValidatorPoolcontract. Can you provide more context about the specific changes made to the contract's functionality?Given the significance of this update, I strongly recommend thorough testing to ensure the updated contract functions as expected, including:
- Unit tests to cover all code paths
- Integration tests to validate interactions with other contracts
- Regression tests to ensure existing functionality is not broken
- Security audits to identify any new vulnerabilities introduced by the changes
kroma-validator/guardian.go (18)
12-14: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
24-24: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
47-47: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Also applies to: 51-51
142-145: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
154-156: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Also applies to: 163-163
186-193: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
196-250: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
279-286: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
316-316: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
333-333: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
348-365: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
369-377: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
379-389: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Line range hint
395-414: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
616-639: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
641-666: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
735-739: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
769-773: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
packages/contracts/contracts/L1/ValidatorManager.sol (25)
1-2: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
4-14: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
27-40: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
42-89: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
107-130: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
135-138: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
143-146: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
151-154: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
167-184: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
189-211: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
216-221: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
226-229: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
234-249: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
254-268: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
273-290: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
295-307: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
312-314: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
319-321: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
326-345: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
350-375: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
380-388: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
393-395: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
400-402: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
407-409: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
414-416: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
op-e2e/actions/l2_challenger_test.go (9)
30-46: LGTM!The refactoring of
TestChallengerBatchTypeto use thechallengerTestsslice and support running tests in singular and span batch modes looks good.
48-62: LGTM!The refactoring of
TestValidatorSystemVersionto use thechallengerTestsslice and support running tests for different validator versions looks good.
Line range hint
64-149: LGTM!The enhancements to
ChallengeBasictest to support different validator versions and include version-specific checks look good.
Line range hint
152-232: LGTM!The enhancements to
ChallengeAsserterBisectTimeouttest to support different validator versions and include version-specific checks look good.
Line range hint
235-313: LGTM!The enhancements to
ChallengeChallengerBisectTimeouttest to support different validator versions and include version-specific checks look good.
Line range hint
316-398: LGTM!The enhancements to
ChallengeChallengerProvingTimeouttest to support different validator versions and include version-specific checks look good.
Line range hint
401-514: LGTM!The enhancements to
ChallengeInvalidProofFailtest to support different validator versions and include version-specific checks look good.
Line range hint
517-608: LGTM!The enhancements to
ChallengeForceDeleteOutputBySecurityCounciltest to support different validator versions and include version-specific checks look good.
Line range hint
611-726: LGTM!The enhancements to
MultipleChallengestest to support different validator versions and include version-specific checks look good.kroma-bindings/bindings/governancetoken_more.go (1)
16-16: Bytecode changes require thorough testing and validation.The substantial updates to the
GovernanceTokenDeployedBinvariable indicate that the governance token contract's logic and functionality have undergone significant modifications. These changes may include the introduction of new features, alterations to existing ones, or optimizations to the contract's implementation.Given the extent of the bytecode changes, it is crucial to:
Thoroughly test the updated contract to ensure that all new and existing features function as intended and do not introduce any undesired behavior or vulnerabilities.
Validate that the modifications align with the contract's specifications and requirements, and that they do not break any existing integrations or dependencies.
Review the gas consumption and performance of the updated contract to ensure that the changes do not introduce any inefficiencies or excessive costs.
Update any relevant documentation, tests, and deployment scripts to reflect the changes made to the contract.
Failing to properly test and validate the updated contract could lead to potential bugs, security issues, or unexpected behavior when deployed to the network.
To ensure the correctness and security of the updated contract, consider the following:
- Run a comprehensive suite of unit tests covering all new and existing functionality.
- Perform integration tests to verify that the contract interacts correctly with other components of the system.
- Conduct thorough security audits, including both manual code review and automated analysis tools, to identify any potential vulnerabilities or attack vectors introduced by the changes.
- Deploy the updated contract to a test network and perform end-to-end testing to validate its behavior in a live environment.
By following these verification steps, you can mitigate the risks associated with the bytecode changes and ensure a smooth and secure deployment of the updated governance token contract.
packages/contracts/contracts/L1/AssetManager.sol (16)
1-76: LGTM!The contract declaration and state variables follow best practices and are well-structured.
81-84: LGTM!The
onlyValidatorManagermodifier provides proper access control and uses a custom error for efficiency.
89-95: LGTM!The
isRegisteredmodifier provides proper validation and uses a custom error for efficiency.
100-103: LGTM!The
onlyWithdrawAccountmodifier provides proper access control and uses a custom error for efficiency.
109-109: LGTM!The
versionconstant follows best practices for contract versioning and uses a custom NatSpec tag for metadata.
122-138: LGTM!The constructor properly initializes the contract's state variables with the provided parameters.
143-148: LGTM!The
getKroTotalShareBalancefunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
153-155: LGTM!The
getKroAssetsfunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
160-162: LGTM!The
getKghNumfunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
167-169: LGTM!The
previewDelegatefunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
174-176: LGTM!The
previewUndelegatefunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
181-186: LGTM!The
canUndelegateKroAtfunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
191-199: LGTM!The
canUndelegateKghAtfunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
204-206: LGTM!The
canWithdrawAtfunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
211-220: LGTM!The
getKghRewardfunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.
225-227: LGTM!The
getWithdrawAccountfunction is properly implemented and follows the expected behavior.kroma-validator/challenger.go (15)
46-60: LGTM!The new fields added to the
Challengerstruct, such asvalMgrContract,assetMgrContract,requiredBondAmountV1,requiredBondAmountV2, andvalPoolTerminationIndex, align well with the overall theme of enhancing validator management functionality. The naming is clear and the types are appropriate.
Line range hint
82-106: LGTM!The updates to the
NewChallengerfunction to initialize the new fieldsl2OOContract,l2OOABI,valMgrContract, andassetMgrContractfollow the existing pattern and include proper error handling. The changes look good.
Line range hint
131-194: LGTM!The updates to the
InitConfigfunction to fetch and set values for the new fieldsrequiredBondAmountV1,requiredBondAmountV2, andvalPoolTerminationIndexare implemented correctly. The function now watches for upgrades on theValidatorPoolAddrandAssetManagerAddrcontracts and updates the corresponding values with proper error handling. The changes look good.
488-493: LGTM!The update to the
handleOutputfunction to call the newCanCreateChallengefunction instead ofHasEnoughDepositaligns with the new functionality introduced. The change looks good.
Line range hint
580-589: LGTM!The updates to the
handleChallengefunction to call the newChallengerTimeoutfunction when the challenge status isStatusChallengerTimeoutare implemented correctly. The logic follows the existing pattern for submitting challenge transactions and looks good.
Line range hint
595-606: LGTM!The updates to the
handleChallengefunction to cancel the challenge when the output is already deleted and the status is notStatusChallengerTimeout, for the challenger role, are implemented correctly. The logic follows the existing pattern for submitting challenge transactions and looks good.
648-704: LGTM!The new
CanCreateChallengefunction is well-implemented and replaces the previousHasEnoughDepositfunction. It performs the necessary checks to determine if a challenge can be created based on the validator pool termination index, validator status, and required bond amount. The function is well-structured, handles different scenarios, and includes appropriate error handling. The boolean return value clearly indicates whether a challenge can be created. The implementation looks good.
706-708: LGTM!The new
IsValPoolTerminatedfunction is a straightforward and clear implementation. It compares thevalPoolTerminationIndexwith the providedoutputIndexand returns a boolean value indicating whether the validator pool is terminated. The function is concise and serves its purpose well.
710-720: LGTM!The new
isInJailfunction is implemented correctly. It calls theInJailfunction of thevalMgrContractwith the validator's address and includes proper error handling. The function returns a boolean value indicating whether the validator is in jail, which is clear and concise. The implementation looks good.
737-756: LGTM!The updates to the
GetChallengefunction to return additional challenge segment data are implemented correctly. The function now fetches both the challenge data and the associated segments using theChallengesandGetSegmentsfunctions of thecolosseumContract. The returnedTypesChallengestruct includes the segment data, providing more comprehensive information about the challenge. The changes enhance the functionality of the function and look good.
Line range hint
822-832: LGTM!The update to the
OutputsAtIndexfunction to use the newl2OOContractfield instead of the previousl2ooContractis a minor change that aligns with the renamed field. The rest of the function remains unchanged and continues to fetch the remote and local outputs at the given index correctly. The change looks good.
Line range hint
885-903: LGTM!The new
BuildSegmentsfunction is implemented correctly. It fetches the segment lengths for the given turn using theSegmentsLengthsfunction of thecolosseumContractand creates empty segments using theNewEmptySegmentsfunction. The function then populates the hash values for each segment by fetching the output at each block number. The error handling is appropriate, and the function returns the built segments. The implementation is clear and follows the expected logic.
Line range hint
905-919: LGTM!The new
selectFaultPositionfunction is implemented correctly. It iterates over the block numbers of the segments and fetches the corresponding output using theOutputAtBlockSafefunction. It then compares the hash value of each segment with the output root to find the fault position. If a mismatch is found, it returns the index of the fault position. If no fault position is found, it returns an appropriate error. The function is clear and follows the expected logic for selecting the fault position.
Line range hint
948-951: LGTM!The update to the
Bisectfunction to use the newGetChallengefunction to fetch the challenge data is a minor change that aligns with the updated functionality. The rest of the function remains unchanged and continues to implement the bisection logic correctly. The change looks good.
Line range hint
976-981: LGTM!The new
ChallengerTimeoutfunction is implemented correctly. It logs the relevant information and creates a challenger timeout transaction using theChallengerTimeoutfunction of thecolosseumContract. The transaction options are set correctly using theNewSimpleTxOptsfunction. The function is straightforward and serves its purpose well.op-e2e/setup.go (8)
311-313: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
112-115: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
479-480: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Line range hint
963-1062: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
1118-1120: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Line range hint
1180-1183: Skipped reviewing unchanged code.The code in this section is not changed, so it can be skipped from the review.
253-258: Verify the usage of the newEnableChallengeandValidatorVersionflags.Ensure that the new flags are being used correctly in the codebase:
EnableChallengeshould be checked before setting up the challenge system.ValidatorVersionshould be checked to determine the version of the validator system to use.Run the following script to verify the flag usage:
Verification successful
Flags
EnableChallengeandValidatorVersionare used correctly.The
EnableChallengeflag is used to conditionally set up the challenge system, and theValidatorVersionflag is used to determine the validator system version. Both flags are also utilized in test cases to verify their functionality.
EnableChallengeis checked before setting up the challenge system inop-e2e/setup.go.ValidatorVersionis checked to determine the validator version inop-e2e/setup.go.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the new `EnableChallenge` and `ValidatorVersion` flags. # Test: Search for the usage of `EnableChallenge`. # Expect: It should be checked before setting up the challenge system. rg --type go -A 5 $'EnableChallenge' # Test: Search for the usage of `ValidatorVersion`. # Expect: It should be checked to determine the version of the validator system to use. rg --type go -A 5 $'ValidatorVersion'Length of output: 4480
845-875: Verify the usage ofValidatorVersion.Ensure that the
ValidatorVersionflag is being used correctly to determine the version of the validator system to use.Run the following script to verify the flag usage:
Verification successful
ValidatorVersion usage is correct and consistent. The
ValidatorVersionflag is used appropriately to determine the version of the validator system, specifically checking forvalhelper.ValidatorV2to execute version-specific setup steps. This usage is consistent across the codebase, including in test configurations. No issues found.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the `ValidatorVersion` flag. # Test: Search for the usage of `ValidatorVersion`. # Expect: It should be checked to determine the version of the validator system to use. rg --type go -A 10 $'ValidatorVersion'Length of output: 3569
packages/contracts/contracts/L1/Colosseum.sol (15)
10-10: LGTM!The code change is approved.
29-29: LGTM!The code change is approved.
241-359: LGTM!The new error definitions improve the clarity of error handling.
201-212: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
412-426: LGTM!The changes improve the clarity and correctness of the
initializefunction.
442-450: LGTM!The changes improve the access control and error handling of the
createChallengefunction.
463-464: LGTM!The change improves the error handling of the
createChallengefunction.
484-490: LGTM!The changes handle the transition to the new validator system correctly.
519-521: LGTM!The change improves the correctness of the
bisectfunction.
535-535: LGTM!The change improves the access control of the
bisectfunction.
547-547: LGTM!The change improves the clarity and correctness of the
bisectfunction.
576-578: LGTM!The change improves the correctness of the
proveFaultfunction.
586-587: LGTM!The change improves the correctness of the
proveFaultfunction.
592-593: LGTM!The change improves the clarity and consistency of the
proveFaultfunction.
616-618: LGTM!The change prevents proving the same fault multiple times.
packages/contracts/.storage-layout (8)
16-16: LGTM!The addition of the
deletedOutputsmapping in theColosseumcontract is approved.
38-40: LGTM!The addition of the
_vaultsmapping in theAssetManagercontract is approved.
46-52: LGTM!The addition of new mappings and variables in the
ValidatorManagercontract is approved. These changes enhance the contract's functionality related to validator management.
102-109: LGTM!The addition of the
nextFinalizeOutputIndexvariable in theL2OutputOraclecontract is approved. This variable likely serves to track the next output index to be finalized, enhancing the contract's operational logic.
271-285: LGTM!The addition of new variables in the
KromaVestingWalletcontract is approved. These changes indicate a more comprehensive vesting mechanism, allowing for better management of token releases over time.
399-400: LGTM!The addition of the
_initializedand_initializingvariables in theSecurityCouncilTokencontract is approved. These variables are typically used for future-proofing the contract against upgrades, suggesting a focus on maintaining the contract's extensibility.
399-401: LGTM!The addition of the
_initializedand_initializingvariables in theGovernanceTokencontract is approved. These variables are typically used for future-proofing the contract against upgrades, suggesting a focus on maintaining the contract's extensibility.
411-417: LGTM!The addition of new variables in the
MintManagercontract is approved. These changes indicate an enhancement in the contract's governance capabilities for managing ownership and minting status.kroma-bindings/bindings/zkverifier_more.go (1)
Line range hint
18-24: LGTM!The
init()function is correctly implemented and handles errors appropriately by panicking. It ensures that theZKVerifierStorageLayoutvariable is properly initialized with the JSON data during package initialization.kroma-bindings/bindings/colosseum_more.go (2)
12-12: Review the storage layout changes thoroughly.The changes to
ColosseumStorageLayoutJSONindicate significant modifications to the contract's data structure, such as:
- Updated mapping for
challenges.- New mapping
deletedOutputsto track deleted outputs.Please review these changes thoroughly to ensure they align with the intended functionality of the
Colosseumcontract.
16-16: Review the deployed bytecode changes.The update to
ColosseumDeployedBinreflects changes in the bytecode of the deployedColosseumcontract. This could imply modifications to the contract's logic or functionality.Please review these changes to understand their impact on the contract's behavior.
kroma-chain-ops/genesis/config.go (7)
158-182: Review the changes to the governance token related fields in DeployConfig.The following changes have been made to the governance token related fields:
GovernanceTokenNotUseCreate2has been added to determine whether to use CREATE2 to deploy GovernanceTokenProxy.GovernanceTokenProxySalthas been added to determine GovernanceTokenProxy address on L1 and L2.MintManagerOwnerhas been added to represent the owner of the MintManager on L1 and L2.L1MintManagerRecipientsandL1MintManagerShareshave been added to represent the recipients and their shares of the minted governance tokens on L1.L2MintManagerRecipientsandL2MintManagerShareshave been added to represent the recipients and their shares of the minted governance tokens on L2.
433-463: Review the updates to the Check method for governance token related fields.The following checks have been added for the governance token related fields:
GovernanceTokenProxySaltcannot be an empty hash.MintManagerOwnercannot be address(0).L1MintManagerRecipientsarray cannot be empty.L1MintManagerRecipientsandL1MintManagerSharesmust be the same length.L2MintManagerRecipientsarray cannot be empty.L2MintManagerRecipientsandL2MintManagerSharesmust be the same length.
276-300: Review the addition of validator related fields in DeployConfig.The following fields have been added for validator configuration:
ValidatorPoolTerminateOutputIndexrepresents the output index where ValidatorPool is terminated.ValidatorManagerTrustedValidatorrepresents the address of the trusted validator.ValidatorManagerMinRegisterAmountrepresents the minimum register amount.ValidatorManagerMinActivateAmountrepresents the minimum activation amount.ValidatorManagerCommissionChangeDelaySecondsrepresents the delay to finalize the commission rate change.ValidatorManagerRoundDurationSecondsrepresents the duration of one submission round.ValidatorManagerSoftJailPeriodSecondsrepresents the duration of jail period in output non-submissions penalty.ValidatorManagerHardJailPeriodSecondsrepresents the duration of jail period in slashing penalty.ValidatorManagerJailThresholdrepresents the threshold of output non-submission to be jailed.ValidatorManagerMaxFinalizationsrepresents the max number of output finalizations when distributing reward.ValidatorManagerBaseRewardrepresents the amount of the base reward.
302-309: Review the addition of asset manager related fields in DeployConfig.The following fields have been added for asset manager configuration:
AssetManagerKghrepresents the address of the KGH NFT contract.AssetManagerVaultrepresents the address of the validator reward vault.AssetManagerMinDelegationPeriodrepresents the duration of minimum delegation period.AssetManagerBondAmountrepresents the bond amount.
540-584: Review the updates to the Check method for validator related fields.The following checks have been added for the validator related fields:
ValidatorManagerTrustedValidatorcannot be address(0).ValidatorManagerMinRegisterAmountcannot be nil.ValidatorManagerMinActivateAmountcannot be nil.ValidatorManagerMinActivateAmountmust be equal to or more thanValidatorManagerMinRegisterAmount.ValidatorManagerCommissionChangeDelaySecondscannot be 0.ValidatorManagerRoundDurationSecondscannot be 0.ValidatorManagerSoftJailPeriodSecondscannot be 0.ValidatorManagerHardJailPeriodSecondscannot be 0.ValidatorManagerJailThresholdcannot be 0.ValidatorManagerMaxFinalizationscannot be 0.ValidatorManagerBaseRewardcannot be nil.AssetManagerKghcannot be address(0).AssetManagerVaultcannot be address(0).AssetManagerMinDelegationPeriodcannot be 0.AssetManagerBondAmountcannot be nil.
Line range hint
849-864: Review the addition of new fields in L1Deployments.The following fields have been added to the L1Deployments type:
L1MintManagerrepresents the address of the L1MintManager contract.AssetManagerrepresents the address of the AssetManager contract.AssetManagerProxyrepresents the address of the AssetManagerProxy contract.ValidatorManagerrepresents the address of the ValidatorManager contract.ValidatorManagerProxyrepresents the address of the ValidatorManagerProxy contract.
585-587: Verify the consistency between L2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval and validator durations.Ensure that:
- Double of
ValidatorManagerRoundDurationSecondsmust equalL2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval.- Double of
ValidatorPoolRoundDurationmust equalL2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval.Run the following script to verify the consistency:
Verification successful
Verification Successful: Consistency between L2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval and Validator Durations is Ensured
The codebase contains checks to ensure that double of both
ValidatorManagerRoundDurationSecondsandValidatorPoolRoundDuration(when multiplied byL2BlockTime) equalsL2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval. This confirms the consistency as required by the review comment.
kroma-chain-ops/genesis/config.go: Lines checking the consistency for bothValidatorManagerRoundDurationSecondsandValidatorPoolRoundDuration.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the consistency between L2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval and validator durations. # Test: Search for the usage of L2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval, ValidatorManagerRoundDurationSeconds, and ValidatorPoolRoundDuration. # Expect: Double of ValidatorManagerRoundDurationSeconds and ValidatorPoolRoundDuration must equal L2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval. rg --type go -A 5 $'L2OutputOracleSubmissionInterval|ValidatorManagerRoundDurationSeconds|ValidatorPoolRoundDuration'Length of output: 10202
kroma-bindings/bindings/mintmanager.go (9)
1-2: Do not modify this file.This file is auto-generated. Any manual changes will be lost when the file is regenerated.
4-17: LGTM!The package declaration and imports are correctly set up for a Go binding file.
32-36: LGTM!The
MintManagerMetaDatavariable correctly stores the ABI and bytecode of theMintManagercontract.
46-61: LGTM!The
DeployMintManagerfunction correctly deploys a new instance of theMintManagercontract using the provided parameters and returns the deployed contract instance.
63-120: LGTM!The generated structs and types for the
MintManagercontract are correctly implemented and follow the standard pattern for Go bindings.
122-165: LGTM!The
NewMintManagerfunction and its variants are correctly implemented and provide a convenient way to create new instances of theMintManagerstruct and its associated types, bound to a specific deployed contract.
167-203: LGTM!The low-level contract interaction functions are correctly implemented and provide a way to directly interact with the contract's methods using the low-level functions provided by the
go-ethereumlibrary.
205-577: LGTM!The generated contract method bindings are correctly implemented and provide a type-safe way to interact with the contract's methods from a Go application.
621-925: LGTM!The generated event bindings are correctly implemented and provide a way to filter and watch the contract's events from a Go application.
kroma-bindings/bindings/l2outputoracle.go (7)
34-35: LGTM!The changes to the ABI string are approved. The addition of the
_validatorManagerparameter in the constructor and theVALIDATOR_MANAGERfunction reflect the enhancements made to the L2OutputOracle contract for managing validator operations.
Line range hint
47-56: LGTM!The changes to the
DeployL2OutputOraclefunction are approved. The addition of the_validatorManagerparameter and passing it to thebind.DeployContractmethod ensure that the contract is deployed with the correct validator manager configuration.
329-358: LGTM!The addition of the
VALIDATORMANAGERfunction is approved. The new getter functions enhance the contract's usability by allowing clients to retrieve the address of the validator manager associated with the contract.
701-730: LGTM!The addition of the
NextFinalizeOutputIndexfunction is approved. The new getter functions enhance the contract's usability by allowing clients to retrieve the next output index to be finalized directly.
763-792: LGTM!The addition of the
NextOutputMinL2Timestampfunction is approved. The new getter functions enhance the contract's usability by allowing clients to retrieve the minimum L2 timestamp for the next output directly.
929-948: LGTM!The addition of the
SetNextFinalizeOutputIndexfunction is approved. The new setter functions enhance the contract's functionality by allowing the contract owner to set the next output index to be finalized, which is crucial for managing the contract's state.
Line range hint
1175-1256: LGTM!The changes to the
L2OutputOracleOutputReplacedstruct and related functions are approved. The addition of theNewSubmitterfield to the struct and the inclusion of thenewSubmitterparameter in theFilterOutputReplaced,WatchOutputReplaced, andParseOutputReplacedfunctions ensure that thenewSubmitterinformation is properly captured and handled when interacting with theOutputReplacedevent.op-e2e/system_test.go (5)
166-244: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
295-405: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
1746-1862: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Tools
golangci-lint
1781-1781: ineffectual assignment to err
(ineffassign)
1864-1995: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
1781-1781: Skipping comment on static analysis hint.The hint about an ineffectual assignment to
erron line 1781 appears to be a false positive. Theerrvariable is being assigned a value and used for error checking in the subsequent line.Tools
golangci-lint
1781-1781: ineffectual assignment to err
(ineffassign)
kroma-bindings/bindings/validatorpool.go (2)
Line range hint
47-56: LGTM!The changes to the
DeployValidatorPoolfunction look good. The new_terminateOutputIndexparameter is correctly added to the function signature and passed to thebind.DeployContractfunction call, reflecting the updated contract ABI.
453-482: LGTM!The addition of the
TERMINATE_OUTPUT_INDEXfunction and associated Go methods looks good. The function is correctly defined in the contract ABI, and the corresponding Go methods are properly added to theValidatorPoolCaller,ValidatorPoolSession, andValidatorPoolCallerSessiontypes, allowing the function to be called through the contract's interfaces.
| Note that withdraw of the deposited asset and reward must be done with the withdraw account that was set during the | ||
| registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of the withdraw account safe, since it cannot be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use "withdrawal" instead of "withdraw" when referring to the act of withdrawing or the withdrawn amount.
The static analysis tool correctly points out that "withdraw" is being used as a noun in lines 69 and 70, which is incorrect. The correct term should be "withdrawal" when referring to the act of withdrawing or the withdrawn amount.
Please apply the following changes:
-Note that withdraw of the deposited asset and reward must be done with the withdraw account that was set during the
-registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of the withdraw account safe, since it cannot be
+Note that withdrawal of the deposited asset and reward must be done with the withdrawal account that was set during the
+registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of the withdrawal account safe, since it cannot beCommittable 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.
| Note that withdraw of the deposited asset and reward must be done with the withdraw account that was set during the | |
| registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of the withdraw account safe, since it cannot be | |
| Note that withdrawal of the deposited asset and reward must be done with the withdrawal account that was set during the | |
| registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of the withdrawal account safe, since it cannot be |
Tools
LanguageTool
[grammar] ~69-~69: The word ‘withdraw’ is not a noun. Did you mean “withdrawal”?
Context: ... asset and reward must be done with the withdraw account that was set during the registr...(PREPOSITION_VERB)
[style] ~70-~70: Consider using a different verb to strengthen your wording.
Context: ...was set during the registration. Please make sure that you must keep the private key of t...(MAKE_SURE_ENSURE)
[grammar] ~70-~70: The word ‘withdraw’ is not a noun. Did you mean “withdrawal”?
Context: ...at you must keep the private key of the withdraw account safe, since it cannot be modifi...(PREPOSITION_VERB)
| func (h *Helper) RegisterToValMgr(priv *ecdsa.PrivateKey, amount *big.Int, withdrawAddr common.Address) { | ||
| transactOpts, err := bind.NewKeyedTransactorWithChainID(priv, h.l1ChainID) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| tx, err := h.AssetTokenContract.Approve(transactOpts, config.L1Deployments.AssetManagerProxy, amount) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| _, err = wait.ForReceiptOK(context.Background(), h.l1Client, tx.Hash()) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| tx, err = h.ValMgrContract.RegisterValidator(transactOpts, amount, uint8(10), withdrawAddr) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| _, err = wait.ForReceiptOK(context.Background(), h.l1Client, tx.Hash()) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, but consider refactoring for code reuse.
The RegisterToValMgr method follows the expected flow for sending transactions. It appropriately handles errors and waits for the transaction receipts.
However, the method could be improved by extracting the common transaction sending logic into a separate function to reduce code duplication. This would make the code more maintainable and easier to update in the future.
| func (h *Helper) Delegate(priv *ecdsa.PrivateKey, validator common.Address, amount *big.Int) { | ||
| transactOpts, err := bind.NewKeyedTransactorWithChainID(priv, h.l1ChainID) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| tx, err := h.AssetTokenContract.Approve(transactOpts, config.L1Deployments.AssetManagerProxy, amount) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| _, err = wait.ForReceiptOK(context.Background(), h.l1Client, tx.Hash()) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| tx, err = h.AssetMgrContract.Delegate(transactOpts, validator, amount) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| _, err = wait.ForReceiptOK(context.Background(), h.l1Client, tx.Hash()) | ||
| require.NoError(h.t, err) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, but consider refactoring for code reuse.
The Delegate method follows the expected flow for sending transactions. It appropriately handles errors and waits for the transaction receipts.
However, similar to the RegisterToValMgr method, the code could be refactored to extract the common transaction sending logic into a separate function. This would improve code maintainability and reusability.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (v *L2Validator) ActApprove(t Testing, assets *big.Int) { | ||
| assetManagerContract, err := bindings.NewAssetManagerCaller(v.assetManagerContractAddr, v.cfg.L1Client) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix the ineffectual assignment.
The err variable is not being used after the assignment at line 188.
Remove the ineffectual assignment:
- tokenAddr, err := assetManagerContract.ASSETTOKEN(&bind.CallOpts{})
+ tokenAddr, _ := assetManagerContract.ASSETTOKEN(&bind.CallOpts{})Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
Tools
golangci-lint
188-188: ineffectual assignment to err
(ineffassign)
| func (rt *Runtime) setupMaliciousChallenger1() { | ||
| rt.challenger1 = rt.maliciousValidator(rt.dp.Secrets.Challenger1) | ||
| rt.challenger1 = rt.setupValidator(rt.dp.Secrets.Challenger1, true, true) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function setupMaliciousChallenger1 is unused.
Static analysis tools indicate that the function is unused in the codebase.
Do you want me to remove the unused function or open a GitHub issue to track this task?
Tools
golangci-lint
115-115: func
(*Runtime).setupMaliciousChallenger1is unused(unused)
| func (rt *Runtime) setupMaliciousChallenger2() { | ||
| rt.challenger2 = rt.maliciousValidator(rt.dp.Secrets.Challenger2) | ||
| rt.challenger2 = rt.setupValidator(rt.dp.Secrets.Challenger2, true, true) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function setupMaliciousChallenger2 is unused.
Static analysis tools indicate that the function is unused in the codebase.
Do you want me to remove the unused function or open a GitHub issue to track this task?
Tools
golangci-lint
119-119: func
(*Runtime).setupMaliciousChallenger2is unused(unused)
| require.Equal(rt.t, beforeAssetBondedChal.Uint64()-slashingAmount.Uint64(), afterAssetBonded.Uint64()) | ||
|
|
||
| // check asserter has been reverted slash by guardian | ||
| valStatus, inJail, afterAsset, afterAssetBonded, slashingAmount = rt.fetchValidatorStatus(rt.validator) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix the unused variable.
The static analysis tool has correctly identified that the variable slashingAmount is never used.
Remove the unused variable:
- valStatus, inJail, afterAsset, afterAssetBonded, slashingAmount = rt.fetchValidatorStatus(rt.validator)
+ valStatus, inJail, afterAsset, afterAssetBonded, _ = rt.fetchValidatorStatus(rt.validator)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.
| valStatus, inJail, afterAsset, afterAssetBonded, slashingAmount = rt.fetchValidatorStatus(rt.validator) | |
| valStatus, inJail, afterAsset, afterAssetBonded, _ = rt.fetchValidatorStatus(rt.validator) |
Tools
golangci-lint
509-509: SA4006: this value of
slashingAmountis never used(staticcheck)
| @@ -9,11 +9,11 @@ import ( | |||
| "github.com/ethereum-optimism/optimism/op-bindings/solc" | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| const GovernanceTokenStorageLayoutJSON = "{\"storage\":[{\"astId\":1000,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_balances\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"0\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256)\"},{\"astId\":1001,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_allowances\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"1\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256))\"},{\"astId\":1002,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_totalSupply\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"2\",\"type\":\"t_uint256\"},{\"astId\":1003,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_name\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"3\",\"type\":\"t_string_storage\"},{\"astId\":1004,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_symbol\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"4\",\"type\":\"t_string_storage\"},{\"astId\":1005,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_nameFallback\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"5\",\"type\":\"t_string_storage\"},{\"astId\":1006,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_versionFallback\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"6\",\"type\":\"t_string_storage\"},{\"astId\":1007,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_nonces\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"7\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_struct(Counter)1013_storage)\"},{\"astId\":1008,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_PERMIT_TYPEHASH_DEPRECATED_SLOT\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"8\",\"type\":\"t_bytes32\"},{\"astId\":1009,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_delegates\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"9\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_address)\"},{\"astId\":1010,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_checkpoints\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"10\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1012_storage)dyn_storage)\"},{\"astId\":1011,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_totalSupplyCheckpoints\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"11\",\"type\":\"t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1012_storage)dyn_storage\"}],\"types\":{\"t_address\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"address\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"20\"},\"t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1012_storage)dyn_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"dynamic_array\",\"label\":\"struct ERC20Votes.Checkpoint[]\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"base\":\"t_struct(Checkpoint)1012_storage\"},\"t_bytes32\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"bytes32\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_address)\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e address)\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_address\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1012_storage)dyn_storage)\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e struct ERC20Votes.Checkpoint[])\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1012_storage)dyn_storage\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256))\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e mapping(address =\u003e uint256))\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256)\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_struct(Counter)1013_storage)\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e struct Counters.Counter)\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_struct(Counter)1013_storage\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256)\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e uint256)\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_uint256\"},\"t_string_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"bytes\",\"label\":\"string\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_struct(Checkpoint)1012_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"struct ERC20Votes.Checkpoint\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_struct(Counter)1013_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"struct Counters.Counter\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_uint224\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint224\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"28\"},\"t_uint256\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint256\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_uint32\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint32\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"4\"}}}" | |||
| const GovernanceTokenStorageLayoutJSON = "{\"storage\":[{\"astId\":1000,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_balances\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"0\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256)\"},{\"astId\":1001,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_allowances\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"1\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256))\"},{\"astId\":1002,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_totalSupply\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"2\",\"type\":\"t_uint256\"},{\"astId\":1003,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_name\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"3\",\"type\":\"t_string_storage\"},{\"astId\":1004,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_symbol\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"4\",\"type\":\"t_string_storage\"},{\"astId\":1005,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_nameFallback\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"5\",\"type\":\"t_string_storage\"},{\"astId\":1006,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_versionFallback\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"6\",\"type\":\"t_string_storage\"},{\"astId\":1007,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_nonces\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"7\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_struct(Counter)1020_storage)\"},{\"astId\":1008,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_PERMIT_TYPEHASH_DEPRECATED_SLOT\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"8\",\"type\":\"t_bytes32\"},{\"astId\":1009,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_delegates\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"9\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_address)\"},{\"astId\":1010,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_checkpoints\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"10\",\"type\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1019_storage)dyn_storage)\"},{\"astId\":1011,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_totalSupplyCheckpoints\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"11\",\"type\":\"t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1019_storage)dyn_storage\"},{\"astId\":1012,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_initialized\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"12\",\"type\":\"t_uint8\"},{\"astId\":1013,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_initializing\",\"offset\":1,\"slot\":\"12\",\"type\":\"t_bool\"},{\"astId\":1014,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"__gap\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"13\",\"type\":\"t_array(t_uint256)50_storage\"},{\"astId\":1015,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_owner\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"63\",\"type\":\"t_address\"},{\"astId\":1016,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"__gap\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"64\",\"type\":\"t_array(t_uint256)49_storage\"},{\"astId\":1017,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"_pendingOwner\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"113\",\"type\":\"t_address\"},{\"astId\":1018,\"contract\":\"contracts/governance/GovernanceToken.sol:GovernanceToken\",\"label\":\"__gap\",\"offset\":0,\"slot\":\"114\",\"type\":\"t_array(t_uint256)49_storage\"}],\"types\":{\"t_address\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"address\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"20\"},\"t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1019_storage)dyn_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"dynamic_array\",\"label\":\"struct ERC20Votes.Checkpoint[]\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"base\":\"t_struct(Checkpoint)1019_storage\"},\"t_array(t_uint256)49_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint256[49]\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"1568\",\"base\":\"t_uint256\"},\"t_array(t_uint256)50_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint256[50]\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"1600\",\"base\":\"t_uint256\"},\"t_bool\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"bool\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"1\"},\"t_bytes32\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"bytes32\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_address)\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e address)\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_address\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1019_storage)dyn_storage)\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e struct ERC20Votes.Checkpoint[])\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_array(t_struct(Checkpoint)1019_storage)dyn_storage\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256))\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e mapping(address =\u003e uint256))\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256)\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_struct(Counter)1020_storage)\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e struct Counters.Counter)\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_struct(Counter)1020_storage\"},\"t_mapping(t_address,t_uint256)\":{\"encoding\":\"mapping\",\"label\":\"mapping(address =\u003e uint256)\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\",\"key\":\"t_address\",\"value\":\"t_uint256\"},\"t_string_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"bytes\",\"label\":\"string\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_struct(Checkpoint)1019_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"struct ERC20Votes.Checkpoint\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_struct(Counter)1020_storage\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"struct Counters.Counter\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_uint224\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint224\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"28\"},\"t_uint256\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint256\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"32\"},\"t_uint32\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint32\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"4\"},\"t_uint8\":{\"encoding\":\"inplace\",\"label\":\"uint8\",\"numberOfBytes\":\"1\"}}}" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Storage layout changes suggest enhancements in state management and ownership control.
The updates to the GovernanceTokenStorageLayoutJSON constant, including the addition of new fields like _initialized, _initializing, and _pendingOwner, along with modifications to existing field types, particularly for mappings and structures, indicate the following:
-
Enhanced state management: The new fields suggest improvements in managing the contract's state, potentially supporting initialization states and more granular control over the contract's lifecycle.
-
Changes in mapping utilization: The modifications to the types of existing mapping fields hint at potential changes in how these mappings are used within the contract, which may impact the contract's functionality and data access patterns.
These changes could have implications on the contract's control flow and overall behavior. It's important to review how these updated state variables and mappings are being used throughout the contract to ensure correctness and avoid unintended consequences.
Consider adding comments or documentation explaining the purpose and usage of the new and modified storage layout fields to improve code readability and maintainability.
| if cfg.EnableChallenge { | ||
| if err = cfg.StartChallengeSystem(sys); err != nil { | ||
| return nil, fmt.Errorf("unable to start challenge system: %w", err) | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Offer assistance to generate the unit testing code for the challenge setup.
The code sets up the challenge system if EnableChallenge is true.
Do you want me to generate the unit testing code for the challenge setup or open a GitHub issue to track this task?
Description
This PR is for
v2.0.0release.