refactor(core): semantic journalling #28880 by gzliudan · Pull Request #2081 · XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain

gzliudan · 2026-02-25T05:37:35Z

Proposed changes

This is a follow-up to #1934, and a preparatory PR to a more thorough change in the journalling system.

API methods instead of append operations

This PR hides the journal-implementation details away, so that the statedb invokes methods like JournalCreate, instead of explicitly appending journal-events in a list. This means that it's up to the journal whether to implement it as a sequence of events or aggregate/merge events.

Snapshot-management inside the journal

This PR also makes it so that management of valid snapshots is moved inside the journal, exposed via the methods Snapshot() int and RevertToSnapshot(revid int, s *StateDB).

SetCode

JournalSetCode journals the setting of code: it is implicit that the previous values were "no code" and emptyCodeHash. Therefore, we can simplify the setCode journal.

Selfdestruct

The self-destruct journalling is a bit strange: we allow the selfdestruct operation to be journalled several times. This makes it so that we also are forced to store whether the account was already destructed.

What we can do instead, is to only journal the first destruction, and after that only journal balance-changes, but not journal the selfdestruct itself.

This simplifies the journalling, so that internals about state management does not leak into the journal-API.

Preimages

Preimages were, for some reason, integrated into the journal management, despite not being a consensus-critical data structure. This PR undoes that.
Ref: ethereum#28880

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to XDC network?
Put an ✅ in the boxes that apply

Impacted Components

Which parts of the codebase does this PR touch?
Put an ✅ in the boxes that apply

Checklist

Put an ✅ in the boxes once you have confirmed below actions (or provide reasons on not doing so) that

This PR has sufficient test coverage (unit/integration test) OR I have provided reason in the PR description for not having test coverage
Tested on a private network from the genesis block and monitored the chain operating correctly for multiple epochs.
Provide an end-to-end test plan in the PR description on how to manually test it on the devnet/testnet.
Tested the backwards compatibility.
Tested with XDC nodes running this version co-exist with those running the previous version.
Relevant documentation has been updated as part of this PR
N/A

coderabbitai · 2026-02-25T05:37:45Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 34c33c25-9590-487f-82c7-3fdaf3cae2a4

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

Copilot

Pull request overview

Refactors the state journaling system to make journal operations more semantic and to centralize snapshot/revision bookkeeping inside the journal, alongside some storage journaling semantics improvements and related test updates.

Changes:

Moves snapshot/revert revision tracking from StateDB into journal (snapshot, revertToSnapshot, reset, copy behavior).
Introduces more semantic journal helper methods (e.g., logChange, refundChange, storageChange, touchChange, access list helpers) and updates call sites.
Refines storage dirty/pending handling to better model “revert-to-origin” behavior, and updates snapshot/fuzz tests accordingly.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
core/state/statedb.go	Delegates snapshot/revert and various mutations to semantic journal methods; changes `AddPreimage` behavior.
core/state/journal.go	Adds revision tracking + snapshot/reset APIs; introduces semantic append helpers; adjusts change structs.
core/state/state_object.go	Updates storage access/mutation flow to track original values and clean up dirty/pending slots when reverted.
core/state/statedb_test.go	Renames an action label and adds a guard around `SetCode` in randomized snapshot tests.
core/state/statedb_fuzz_test.go	Renames an action label in fuzz-driven state tests.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

core/state/statedb_test.go:350

The action label was renamed to "SetStorage", but the action still calls StateDB.SetState (set a single storage slot), not StateDB.SetStorage (replace entire storage). This makes snapshot test failure output misleading; consider renaming to something like "SetState"/"SetSlot" to match the invoked API.

			name: "SetStorage",
			fn: func(a testAction, s *StateDB) {
				var key, val common.Hash
				binary.BigEndian.PutUint16(key[:], uint16(a.args[0]))
				binary.BigEndian.PutUint16(val[:], uint16(a.args[1]))
				s.SetState(addr, key, val)
			},

core/state/statedb_fuzz_test.go:79

The action label was renamed to "SetStorage", but the fuzz action still calls StateDB.SetState (set a single storage slot). This name collides with the existing StateDB.SetStorage API and can be confusing when interpreting fuzz traces; consider renaming to "SetState"/"SetSlot".

		{
			name: "SetStorage",
			fn: func(a testAction, s *StateDB) {
				var key, val common.Hash
				binary.BigEndian.PutUint16(key[:], uint16(a.args[0]))
				binary.BigEndian.PutUint16(val[:], uint16(a.args[1]))

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-02-25T07:15:22Z

+func (s *stateObject) getState(key common.Hash) (common.Hash, common.Hash) {
+	origin := s.GetCommittedState(key)
 	value, dirty := s.dirtyStorage[key]
 	if dirty {
-		return value
+		return value, origin


getState now calls GetCommittedState before checking dirtyStorage, meaning a read-only GetState of an already-dirty slot still incurs the committed-state lookup (and potentially a trie read the first time). Consider restoring the fast path for GetState (check dirtyStorage first) and only loading the committed/origin value in the write path (SetState) when it’s actually needed for journalling.

Copilot · 2026-02-25T07:15:22Z

 		logs:                 make(map[common.Hash][]*types.Log, len(s.logs)),
 		logSize:              s.logSize,
 		preimages:            maps.Clone(s.preimages),
 		journal:              s.journal.copy(),
-		validRevisions:       slices.Clone(s.validRevisions),
-		nextRevisionId:       s.nextRevisionId,
 	}


StateDB.Copy still states that snapshots of the copied state cannot be applied, but journal.copy() now clones validRevisions/nextRevisionId, which makes snapshot IDs and the revision stack carry over into the copy. Either reset snapshot metadata on copy (to preserve the documented behavior) or update the Copy docs/expectations accordingly.

This is a follow-up to ethereum#29520, and a preparatory PR to a more thorough change in the journalling system. This PR hides the journal-implementation details away, so that the statedb invokes methods like `JournalCreate`, instead of explicitly appending journal-events in a list. This means that it's up to the journal whether to implement it as a sequence of events or aggregate/merge events. This PR also makes it so that management of valid snapshots is moved inside the journal, exposed via the methods `Snapshot() int` and `RevertToSnapshot(revid int, s *StateDB)`. JournalSetCode journals the setting of code: it is implicit that the previous values were "no code" and emptyCodeHash. Therefore, we can simplify the setCode journal. The self-destruct journalling is a bit strange: we allow the selfdestruct operation to be journalled several times. This makes it so that we also are forced to store whether the account was already destructed. What we can do instead, is to only journal the first destruction, and after that only journal balance-changes, but not journal the selfdestruct itself. This simplifies the journalling, so that internals about state management does not leak into the journal-API. Preimages were, for some reason, integrated into the journal management, despite not being a consensus-critical data structure. This PR undoes that. --------- Co-authored-by: Gary Rong <garyrong0905@gmail.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 25, 2026 05:37

gzliudan requested review from AnilChinchawale, anunay-xin, benjamin202410, liam-lai and wanwiset25 February 25, 2026 05:37

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of gzliudan February 25, 2026 05:38 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread core/state/state_object.go Outdated

Comment thread core/state/journal.go

Comment thread core/state/statedb.go

gzliudan force-pushed the journal_changes branch from 240e56a to f37fcb8 Compare February 25, 2026 06:56

gzliudan requested a review from Copilot February 25, 2026 07:08

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of gzliudan February 25, 2026 07:08 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

anunay-xin approved these changes Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

wanwiset25 approved these changes Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

gzliudan force-pushed the journal_changes branch from f37fcb8 to b904d22 Compare March 7, 2026 10:17

AnilChinchawale approved these changes Mar 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

AnilChinchawale merged commit e02bc07 into XinFinOrg:dev-upgrade Mar 7, 2026
13 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

refactor(core): semantic journalling #28880#2081

refactor(core): semantic journalling #28880#2081
AnilChinchawale merged 1 commit into
XinFinOrg:dev-upgradefrom
gzliudan:journal_changes

gzliudan commented Feb 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Review skipped

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

Conversation

gzliudan commented Feb 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Proposed changes

Types of changes

Impacted Components

Checklist

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Review skipped

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

gzliudan commented Feb 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading