[TRA-617] Integrate PML and Megavault #2331
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@shrenujb has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 10 minutes and 42 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe changes introduce enhancements to the vault management system within the protocol, focusing on new fields and methods related to vault deposit parameters. Key updates include modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 11
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (16)
protocol/x/listing/types/genesis.go (1)
Line range hint
13-15: Consider adding validation for ListingVaultDepositParamsThe
Validatefunction is currently empty and doesn't perform any checks on theListingVaultDepositParamsfield. Consider adding validation logic to ensure the integrity of the genesis state, especially for the newly added field.Here's a suggested implementation:
func (gs GenesisState) Validate() error { - return nil + if err := gs.ListingVaultDepositParams.Validate(); err != nil { + return fmt.Errorf("invalid listing vault deposit params: %w", err) + } + return nil }This assumes that the
Paramstype has aValidatemethod. If it doesn't, you may need to implement appropriate validation logic directly in this function.proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto (1)
15-16: LGTM! New field added correctly.The new
listing_vault_deposit_paramsfield is appropriately added to theGenesisStatemessage:
- It uses the correct type
ListingVaultDepositParams.- It's marked as non-nullable, ensuring it's always present in the genesis state.
- The field number (2) is correctly sequenced.
Consider adding a comment above the new field to explain its purpose and relationship to the Megavault integration, similar to the comment for
hard_cap_for_markets. For example:// listing_vault_deposit_params defines the parameters for PML Megavault deposits // used to provide immediate liquidity to the market. ListingVaultDepositParams listing_vault_deposit_params = 2 [(gogoproto.nullable) = false];protocol/x/listing/keeper/keeper.go (1)
23-23: Summary: Changes align with PR objectivesThe modifications to the
Keeperstruct andNewKeeperfunction successfully integrate theVaultKeeper, which aligns with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. These changes lay the groundwork for implementing the requirement that every market listing will deposit a minimum amount into the Megavault.To fully complete this integration, ensure that:
- The
VaultKeeperinterface is properly defined with the necessary methods for interacting with Megavault.- The concrete implementation of
VaultKeeperis created and tested.- The logic for depositing the minimum amount into Megavault for each market listing is implemented in the appropriate location (likely in a separate PR or additional files).
- Unit tests are added to verify the integration and functionality of the
VaultKeeperwithin theKeeperstruct.Also applies to: 35-35, 45-45
protocol/x/listing/module.go (1)
106-106: LGTM. Consider adding a comment for the new field.The addition of the
vaultKeeperfield to theAppModulestruct is appropriate and aligns with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this field, similar to other fields in the struct. For example:
// vaultKeeper manages the vault operations for the listing module vaultKeeper types.VaultKeeperprotocol/app/testdata/default_genesis_state.json (1)
356-361: Summary of changes and potential impactThe changes in this file are crucial for integrating Megavault into the PML system:
- Setting a hard cap of 500 markets introduces a limit that may affect system scalability.
- The new
listing_vault_deposit_paramsestablishes the framework for market listing deposits into Megavault.These changes have the potential to significantly impact the system's behavior and capacity. Ensure that thorough testing is conducted to verify:
- The system's behavior when approaching and reaching the market cap.
- The correct application of vault deposits for new market listings.
- The locking and unlocking of shares based on the specified block number.
Additionally, consider documenting these new parameters and their implications for system administrators and users.
protocol/x/clob/keeper/clob_pair.go (1)
Line range hint
210-215: LGTM: Improved function visibilityThe change from
setClobPairtoSetClobPairis good. Making the function public allows for better modularity and potential reuse in other packages. The implementation remains consistent, which is great.Consider adding a brief comment explaining why this function is now exported. For example:
// SetClobPair sets a specific `ClobPair` in the store from its index. // This function is exported to allow other packages to directly set CLOB pairs if needed. func (k Keeper) SetClobPair(ctx sdk.Context, clobPair types.ClobPair) { // ... (rest of the function remains the same) }protocol/testing/genesis.sh (2)
Line range hint
1-2268: Consider refactoring theedit_genesisfunction for improved maintainabilityThe
edit_genesisfunction is quite long and handles configurations for multiple modules. While the new "Listing" section is appropriately placed, the overall structure of the function could be improved for better readability and maintainability.Consider refactoring the
edit_genesisfunction by:
- Breaking it down into smaller, module-specific functions.
- Using a more declarative approach for setting configuration values.
- Implementing error handling and validation for input parameters.
This refactoring would make the code easier to understand, maintain, and extend in the future.
Here's an example of how you could start refactoring:
function edit_genesis() { local GENESIS=$1 # ... (other local variable declarations) update_consensus_params update_crisis_module update_gov_module update_staking_module update_assets_module update_bridge_module update_ibc_module update_perpetuals_module update_prices_module update_clob_module update_listing_module # ... (other module update functions) } function update_listing_module() { local GENESIS=$1 dasel put -t int -f "$GENESIS" ".app_state.listing.hard_cap_for_markets" -v '500' local new_vault_deposit="10000" local main_vault_deposit="0" local num_blocks_to_lock=2592000 dasel put -t string -f "$GENESIS" ".app_state.listing.listing_vault_deposit_params.new_vault_deposit_amount" -v "$new_vault_deposit" dasel put -t string -f "$GENESIS" ".app_state.listing.listing_vault_deposit_params.main_vault_deposit_amount" -v "$main_vault_deposit" dasel put -t int -f "$GENESIS" ".app_state.listing.listing_vault_deposit_params.num_blocks_to_lock_shares" -v "$num_blocks_to_lock" } # ... (other module update functions)This structure would make it easier to manage and update individual modules, as well as add new modules in the future.
Line range hint
1-2268: Suggestions for improving overall script structure and implementationWhile the script is functional, there are several areas where it could be improved:
Documentation: Add more comprehensive comments explaining the purpose of each function and any non-obvious logic.
Configuration: Consider moving hardcoded values to a separate configuration file or environment variables for easier management and customization.
Error Handling: Implement more robust error handling and input validation throughout the script.
Modularity: Break down large functions into smaller, more focused functions to improve readability and maintainability.
Consistency: Ensure consistent naming conventions and coding style throughout the script.
Testing: Add unit tests for individual functions to ensure reliability and ease of maintenance.
Logging: Implement a logging mechanism to track the execution of the script and aid in debugging.
Dependencies: Clearly document and check for required external tools (e.g.,
dasel,jq) at the beginning of the script.Here's an example of how you could start implementing some of these improvements:
#!/bin/bash set -euo pipefail # Load configuration source ./config.sh # Check dependencies check_dependencies() { local deps=("dasel" "jq") for dep in "${deps[@]}"; do if ! command -v "$dep" &> /dev/null; then echo "Error: $dep is required but not installed." >&2 exit 1 fi done } # Logging function log() { echo "[$(date +'%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')] $1" } # Main function main() { check_dependencies log "Starting genesis file editing" edit_genesis "$@" log "Finished editing genesis file" } # Run the script main "$@"Implementing these suggestions would greatly improve the overall quality, maintainability, and robustness of the script.
protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go (1)
203-207: Consider renamingDepositToMegavaultforPMLtoDepositToMegavaultForPMLFor consistency with Go naming conventions, consider renaming the method to
DepositToMegavaultForPMLusing CamelCase formatting. This enhances readability and aligns with standard naming practices.Apply this diff to rename the function:
-func (k Keeper) DepositToMegavaultforPML( +func (k Keeper) DepositToMegavaultForPML( ctx sdk.Context, fromSubaccount satypes.SubaccountId, clobPairId uint32, ) error {protocol/x/vault/keeper/vault.go (4)
296-298: Wrap the error with context when ClobPair is not foundCurrently, the code returns 'types.ErrClobPairNotFound' directly. Wrapping the error with additional context can provide more information and aid in debugging.
Apply this diff to wrap the error:
if !exists { - return types.ErrClobPairNotFound + return errorsmod.Wrapf(types.ErrClobPairNotFound, "ClobPairId %d not found for VaultId %v", vaultId.Number, vaultId) }
305-317: Handle potential error when adding vault to address storeAfter setting the vault params, it's good practice to check for potential errors when adding the vault to the address store, even if the current implementation does not return an error.
Modify the code to handle any future errors:
err = k.AddVaultToAddressStore(ctx, vaultId) if err != nil { return err }Additionally, if 'AddVaultToAddressStore' cannot fail, consider documenting this behavior in the function's comments.
320-328: Provide detailed error handling for 'ProcessTransfer'When calling 'k.sendingKeeper.ProcessTransfer', if an error occurs, wrapping it with additional context can help identify the source of the error more quickly.
Apply this diff to wrap the error:
if err := k.sendingKeeper.ProcessTransfer( ctx, &sendingtypes.Transfer{ Sender: types.MegavaultMainSubaccount, Recipient: *vaultId.ToSubaccountId(), AssetId: assetstypes.AssetUsdc.Id, Amount: quantums.Uint64(), }, ); err != nil { - return err + return errorsmod.Wrap(err, "failed to process transfer from main vault to specified vault") }
293-331: Consider thread-safety if the method is called concurrentlyIf 'AllocateToVault' can be called concurrently by multiple goroutines, there may be race conditions when checking and setting vault parameters or when adding to the address store.
Consider adding synchronization mechanisms or documenting that this method is not thread-safe if concurrent calls are possible.
protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing_test.go (3)
281-295: Wrap Clob Pair Assertions within DeliverTx Mode CheckThe assertions for the
clobPairproperties are executed regardless of the transaction mode. To avoid unnecessary checks duringCheckTxmode and to ensure that theclobPairis only validated when it's actually created, consider wrapping these assertions inside theif tc.isDeliverTxcondition.Apply this diff to adjust the assertions:
- clobPair, found := clobKeeper.GetClobPair(ctx, clobtypes.ClobPairId(clobPairId)) - require.True(t, found) - require.Equal(t, clobtypes.ClobPair_STATUS_ACTIVE, clobPair.Status) - require.Equal( - t, - clobtypes.SubticksPerTick(types.SubticksPerTick_LongTail), - clobPair.GetClobPairSubticksPerTick(), - ) - require.Equal( - t, - types.DefaultStepBaseQuantums, - clobPair.GetClobPairMinOrderBaseQuantums().ToUint64(), - ) - require.Equal(t, perpetualId, clobPair.MustGetPerpetualId()) - - // Check if the clob pair was created only if we are in deliverTx mode - _, found = clobKeeper.PerpetualIdToClobPairId[perpetualId] - if tc.isDeliverTx { - require.True(t, found) - } else { - require.False(t, found) - } + if tc.isDeliverTx { + clobPair, found := clobKeeper.GetClobPair(ctx, clobtypes.ClobPairId(clobPairId)) + require.True(t, found) + require.Equal(t, clobtypes.ClobPair_STATUS_ACTIVE, clobPair.Status) + require.Equal( + t, + clobtypes.SubticksPerTick(types.SubticksPerTick_LongTail), + clobPair.GetClobPairSubticksPerTick(), + ) + require.Equal( + t, + types.DefaultStepBaseQuantums, + clobPair.GetClobPairMinOrderBaseQuantums().ToUint64(), + ) + require.Equal(t, perpetualId, clobPair.MustGetPerpetualId()) + + // Check if the clob pair was created + _, found = clobKeeper.PerpetualIdToClobPairId[perpetualId] + require.True(t, found) + } else { + _, found = clobKeeper.PerpetualIdToClobPairId[perpetualId] + require.False(t, found) + }
390-402: Enhance Error Assertions for SpecificityIn the error handling of your tests, it's beneficial to assert specific error messages or types to ensure that the correct errors are being triggered. This makes your tests more robust and helps pinpoint issues more effectively.
Consider updating the error assertions as follows:
if tc.expectedErr != "" { - require.ErrorContains(t, err, tc.expectedErr) + require.Error(t, err) + require.Contains(t, err.Error(), tc.expectedErr) } else { require.NoError(t, err) }
308-308: Typographical Correction in Function NameThe function name
TestDepositToMegavaultforPMLhas inconsistent capitalization for "for". For consistency and readability, consider renaming it toTestDepositToMegavaultForPML.Apply this diff to correct the function name:
-func TestDepositToMegavaultforPML(t *testing.T) { +func TestDepositToMegavaultForPML(t *testing.T) {
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
protocol/x/listing/types/genesis.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go
Files selected for processing (18)
- proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto (1 hunks)
- protocol/app/app.go (2 hunks)
- protocol/app/testdata/default_genesis_state.json (1 hunks)
- protocol/testing/genesis.sh (1 hunks)
- protocol/testutil/constants/genesis.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/testutil/keeper/listing.go (4 hunks)
- protocol/x/clob/keeper/clob_pair.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/genesis.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/keeper.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing_test.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/msg_create_market_permissionless.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/msg_create_market_permissionless_test.go (2 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/module.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/types/expected_keepers.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/types/genesis.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/vault/keeper/msg_server_allocate_to_vault.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/vault/keeper/vault.go (2 hunks)
Additional context used
buf
proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto
4-4: import "gogoproto/gogo.proto": file does not exist
(COMPILE)
Additional comments not posted (32)
protocol/x/listing/types/genesis.go (1)
6-7: LGTM! Verify DefaultParams() implementation.The addition of
ListingVaultDepositParamsinitialized withDefaultParams()aligns with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. TheHardCapForMarketsremains unchanged, which is consistent with the PR objectives.To ensure the correctness of the
DefaultParams()function, please run the following script:proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto (2)
1-16: Overall changes align well with PR objectives.The addition of the
listing_vault_deposit_paramsfield to theGenesisStatemessage is a good start for integrating Megavault into the PML system. This change allows for specifying deposit parameters for each market listing, which aligns with the PR objective of ensuring that every market listing will deposit a minimum amount into the Megavault.To ensure completeness of the implementation, please verify the following:
- Is there a corresponding update to the genesis initialization logic to handle the new
listing_vault_deposit_paramsfield?- Are there any other files that need to be updated to use this new parameter (e.g., in the listing process or market creation)?
You can use the following script to check for related changes:
#!/bin/bash # Check for related changes in other files echo "Files potentially needing updates for Megavault integration:" rg --type go -l "GenesisState" ./x/listing echo "Files with potential genesis initialization logic:" rg --type go -l "InitGenesis.*listing" ./x/listingPlease ensure that all necessary changes for the Megavault integration are included in this PR or planned for future PRs.
Tools
buf
4-4: import "gogoproto/gogo.proto": file does not exist
(COMPILE)
4-5: LGTM! New imports are appropriate for the changes.The new imports are necessary for the added functionality:
gogoproto/gogo.protois required for using gogo/protobuf extensions.dydxprotocol/listing/params.protois needed for the newListingVaultDepositParamstype.Regarding the static analysis hint about the missing "gogoproto/gogo.proto" file, this is likely a false positive. To verify, run the following command:
Verification successful
LGTM! Imports and dependencies are correctly configured.
The
genesis.protofile properly imports:
gogoproto/gogo.protois declared inprotocol/go.modand will be fetched as a dependency during the build process.dydxprotocol/listing/params.protois necessary for the added functionality.The static analysis warning regarding the missing
gogoproto/gogo.protois a false positive in this context, as dependencies are managed externally.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if gogoproto is properly set up in the project if grep -q "github.com/gogo/protobuf" go.mod; then echo "gogoproto is properly set up in the project" else echo "gogoproto might be missing from the project dependencies" fiLength of output: 441
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Script 1: Check if "github.com/gogo/protobuf" is listed in go.mod if grep -q "github.com/gogo/protobuf" go.mod; then echo "Dependency check: 'github.com/gogo/protobuf' is present in go.mod." else echo "Dependency check: 'github.com/gogo/protobuf' is missing from go.mod." fi # Script 2: Verify the import statement for "gogoproto/gogo.proto" in genesis.proto if grep -q 'import "gogoproto/gogo.proto";' proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto; then echo "Import statement check: 'gogoproto/gogo.proto' is correctly imported in genesis.proto." else echo "Import statement check: 'gogoproto/gogo.proto' is missing from genesis.proto." fi # Script 3: Confirm the existence of 'gogoproto/gogo.proto' in the repository if fd "gogo.proto" --type f | grep -q "gogoproto/gogo.proto"; then echo "File presence check: 'gogoproto/gogo.proto' exists in the repository." else echo "File presence check: 'gogoproto/gogo.proto' does not exist in the repository." fiLength of output: 734
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Script 4: Locate all go.mod files in the repository echo "Searching for all go.mod files in the repository..." fd "go.mod" --type f # Script 5: Check each found go.mod for "github.com/gogo/protobuf" echo "Checking each go.mod for 'github.com/gogo/protobuf'..." fd "go.mod" --type f | while read -r file; do if grep -q "github.com/gogo/protobuf" "$file"; then echo "Dependency check: 'github.com/gogo/protobuf' is present in $file." else echo "Dependency check: 'github.com/gogo/protobuf' is missing from $file." fi done # Script 6: Re-verify the existence of 'gogoproto/gogo.proto' in the repository echo "Re-verifying the existence of 'gogoproto/gogo.proto'..." fd "gogo.proto" --type f | grep -q "gogoproto/gogo.proto" && \ echo "File presence check: 'gogoproto/gogo.proto' exists in the repository." || \ echo "File presence check: 'gogoproto/gogo.proto' does not exist in the repository."Length of output: 897
Tools
buf
4-4: import "gogoproto/gogo.proto": file does not exist
(COMPILE)
protocol/x/listing/keeper/msg_create_market_permissionless.go (2)
34-40: LGTM: Capturing clobPairId for further useThe changes here look good. Capturing the
clobPairIdreturned byCreateClobPairis necessary for the new functionality added later in the function. The error handling remains consistent with the existing code style.
Line range hint
1-48: Overall, the changes look good with minor improvements neededThe implementation successfully integrates Megavault into the PML system as described in the PR objectives. The code quality is good, and error handling is consistent with the existing codebase.
To finalize this PR, please address the following points:
- Fix the typo in the function name
DepositToMegavaultforPMLtoDepositToMegavaultForPML.- Clarify the TODO comment: "TODO: vault deposit for PML". Is this still relevant, or can it be removed?
- Ensure that the
DepositToMegavaultForPMLfunction is properly implemented in the appropriate file.Once these minor issues are resolved, the changes will be ready for merging.
protocol/x/listing/keeper/keeper.go (1)
23-23: LGTM. Verify VaultKeeper interface implementation.The addition of the
VaultKeeperfield to theKeeperstruct aligns with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. This change expands theKeeper's capabilities to interact with vault-related operations.To ensure the
VaultKeeperinterface is properly defined and implemented, run the following script:Verification successful
VaultKeeper interface is correctly implemented and used.
The
VaultKeeperinterface is implemented by theKeeperstruct in thex/vault/keeperpackage. All required methods are present:
GetVaultClobOrders,RefreshAllVaultOrders,RefreshVaultClobOrdersinorders.goGetDefaultQuotingParams,SetDefaultQuotingParamsinparams.goGetTotalShares,SetTotalSharesinshares.goMintSharesindeposit.goGetVaultEquityinvault.goThe
NewKeeperfunction inkeeper.golikely initializes this struct. TheVaultKeeperinterface is used in other modules, specifically in thex/listingandx/feetiersmodules, demonstrating proper modularity and dependency management.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the VaultKeeper interface definition and implementation # Test 1: Check for the VaultKeeper interface definition echo "Checking VaultKeeper interface definition:" ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'type VaultKeeper interface { $$$ }' # Test 2: Look for the concrete implementation of VaultKeeper echo "Checking for VaultKeeper implementation:" rg --type go -e 'type .+ struct' -e 'func \(.+\) .+' -A 10 | rg -e 'implements .*VaultKeeper' -e '// VaultKeeper interface implementation'Length of output: 4407
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Further verify VaultKeeper interface implementations by searching for structs that implement all required methods. # Define the interface methods pattern based on the VaultKeeper interface definition INTERFACE_METHODS='GetVaultClobOrders|RefreshAllVaultOrders|GetDefaultQuotingParams|SetDefaultQuotingParams|GetTotalShares|SetTotalShares|MintShares|GetVaultEquity' echo "Searching for structs implementing all VaultKeeper interface methods:" # Find structs that have all the methods defined in the VaultKeeper interface fd --type file --extension go | while read -r file; do struct=$(ast-grep --lang go --pattern "type $_ struct { $$$ }" "$file" | awk '{print $3}') if [ -n "$struct" ]; then method_count=$(rg -A 10 "func \(${struct}\)." "$file" | rg -E "$INTERFACE_METHODS" | wc -l) required_methods=8 # Update this count based on the number of methods in VaultKeeper if [ "$method_count" -ge "$required_methods" ]; then echo "Struct '$struct' in file '$file' likely implements VaultKeeper." fi fi done echo "Searching for assignments or usages of VaultKeeper to identify implementations:" # Search for where VaultKeeper is being assigned or used rg --type go "var\s+\w+\s+VaultKeeper" --context 2Length of output: 308170
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for potential implementations of VaultKeeper interface echo "Searching for potential VaultKeeper implementations:" # Define the methods to search for (from vault/types/types.go) METHODS=( "GetVaultClobOrders" "RefreshAllVaultOrders" "RefreshVaultClobOrders" "GetDefaultQuotingParams" "SetDefaultQuotingParams" "GetTotalShares" "SetTotalShares" "MintShares" "GetVaultEquity" ) # Search for structs that implement these methods for method in "${METHODS[@]}"; do echo "Searching for implementations of $method:" rg "func \(\w+ \*\w+\) $method\(" --type go done echo "Searching for structs with 'Vault' in the name that might implement VaultKeeper:" rg "type \w*Vault\w* struct" --type go echo "Searching for VaultKeeper variable declarations or assignments:" rg "var\s+\w+\s+(\w+\.)?VaultKeeper" --type go rg "\w+\s*:\s*(\w+\.)?VaultKeeper" --type goLength of output: 6278
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for potential VaultKeeper implementation in the x/vault module echo "Searching for potential VaultKeeper implementation in x/vault module:" # Search for keeper struct in x/vault/keeper echo "Searching for keeper struct in x/vault/keeper:" rg "type Keeper struct" protocol/x/vault/keeper --type go # Search for methods that might implement VaultKeeper interface echo "Searching for methods that might implement VaultKeeper interface:" METHODS=( "GetVaultClobOrders" "RefreshAllVaultOrders" "RefreshVaultClobOrders" "GetDefaultQuotingParams" "SetDefaultQuotingParams" "GetTotalShares" "SetTotalShares" "MintShares" "GetVaultEquity" ) for method in "${METHODS[@]}"; do echo "Searching for implementation of $method:" rg "func \(k .*Keeper\) $method\(" protocol/x/vault/keeper --type go done # Search for NewKeeper function echo "Searching for NewKeeper function:" rg "func NewKeeper\(" protocol/x/vault/keeper --type go # Search for VaultKeeper usage in other modules echo "Searching for VaultKeeper usage in other modules:" rg "vaultKeeper\s+types\.VaultKeeper" protocol/x --type goLength of output: 4005
protocol/testutil/keeper/listing.go (4)
17-17: LGTM: Vault keeper import added correctly.The import for the
vaultkeeperpackage has been added correctly, following the existing import structure.
188-188: LGTM: VaultKeeper integrated into createListingKeeper function.The
vaultkeeperparameter has been correctly added to thecreateListingKeeperfunction signature and is properly passed to thekeeper.NewKeepercall. This change aligns with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system.Also applies to: 208-208
17-17: Summary: VaultKeeper successfully integrated into the listing keeper initialization.The changes in this file consistently integrate the
vaultkeeperinto the listing keeper initialization process:
- The
vaultkeeperpackage is imported.- The
vaultKeeperparameter is added to theListingKeepersfunction.- The
vaultkeeperparameter is added to thecreateListingKeeperfunction.- The
vaultkeeperis passed to thekeeper.NewKeepercall.These changes align with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. The implementation appears correct and consistent throughout the file.
To ensure full compatibility, please verify that any other files or tests that use these functions have been updated accordingly.
Run the following script to check for any usage of these functions that might need updating:
Also applies to: 170-170, 188-188, 208-208
Verification successful
Verification Successful: All relevant usages of ListingKeepers and createListingKeeper have been appropriately updated.
The functions
ListingKeepersandcreateListingKeeperare correctly utilized within the test files, ensuring that the integration ofvaultkeeperinto the listing keeper initialization process is consistent and does not adversely affect other parts of the codebase.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find usages of ListingKeepers and createListingKeeper functions # Test: Search for ListingKeepers function calls echo "Searching for ListingKeepers function calls:" rg --type go 'ListingKeepers\(' # Test: Search for createListingKeeper function calls echo "Searching for createListingKeeper function calls:" rg --type go 'createListingKeeper\('Length of output: 913
170-170: LGTM: VaultKeeper parameter added to ListingKeepers function.The
vaultKeeperparameter has been correctly added to theListingKeepersfunction, which aligns with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system.Please ensure that the
vaultKeeperis properly utilized within the function body. Run the following script to verify its usage:protocol/x/listing/module.go (2)
116-116: LGTM. Verify usage of the updatedNewAppModulefunction.The changes to the
NewAppModulefunction are correct and consistent with the addition of thevaultKeeperfield to theAppModulestruct.To ensure that these changes are properly integrated, please verify that all calls to
NewAppModulein the codebase have been updated to include thevaultKeeperparameter. Run the following script to check for any potential missed updates:#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for calls to NewAppModule that might need updating # Search for NewAppModule calls rg --type go "NewAppModule\s*\(" -A 10This will help identify any locations where
NewAppModuleis called, allowing you to verify that they've all been updated to include the newvaultKeeperparameter.Also applies to: 125-125
106-106: Consider architectural implications of adding VaultKeeper dependency.The addition of
vaultKeeperto the listing module introduces a new dependency. While this aligns with the PR objective, it's important to consider the architectural implications:
- Does this addition maintain proper separation of concerns?
- Are there any potential circular dependencies introduced?
- How does this change affect the module's responsibilities and behavior?
To address these concerns:
- Review the listing module's responsibilities and ensure that vault-related operations fit within its domain.
- Check for any circular dependencies between the listing and vault modules.
- Update the module's documentation to reflect its new capabilities and dependencies.
- Consider adding unit tests to verify the correct interaction between the listing module and the vault keeper.
Run the following script to help identify potential circular imports or unexpected dependencies:
This will help identify any unexpected dependencies between the modules that might need to be addressed.
Also applies to: 116-116, 125-125
Verification successful
VaultKeeper Dependency Verified Successfully.
The addition of
vaultKeeperto thelistingmodule does not introduce any circular dependencies between thelistingandvaultmodules. The import checks confirmed that neither module imports the other, ensuring proper separation of concerns and maintaining architectural integrity.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential circular imports or unexpected dependencies # Search for imports related to the vault and listing modules echo "Checking vault-related imports in listing module:" rg --type go "import\s+\([^)]*vault[^)]*\)" ./protocol/x/listing echo "Checking listing-related imports in vault module:" rg --type go "import\s+\([^)]*listing[^)]*\)" ./protocol/x/vaultLength of output: 36967
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential circular imports or unexpected dependencies # Search for imports related to the vault and listing modules echo "Checking vault-related imports in listing module:" rg --type go "import\s+\([^)]*vault[^)]*\)" ./protocol/x/listing echo "Checking listing-related imports in vault module:" rg --type go "import\s+\([^)]*listing[^)]*\)" ./protocol/x/vaultLength of output: 351
protocol/app/testdata/default_genesis_state.json (2)
356-356: Verify the impact of setting a hard cap for markets.The change from 0 to 500 for
hard_cap_for_marketsintroduces a specific limit on the number of markets that can be created. This aligns with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system.Please confirm:
- Is 500 markets sufficient for current and future needs?
- What happens when this limit is reached? Is there a graceful handling mechanism in place?
- Is there documentation or a process for adjusting this value in the future if needed?
357-361: Approve the addition oflisting_vault_deposit_paramswith requests for clarification.The addition of
listing_vault_deposit_paramsaligns with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. Thenew_vault_deposit_amountof 10000 corresponds to the minimum deposit for each market listing as mentioned in the PR summary.However, please clarify the following:
- Why is
main_vault_deposit_amountset to 0? Are there scenarios where this would be non-zero?- The
num_blocks_to_lock_sharesis set to 2592000 (approximately 30 days assuming 1-second blocks). Is this the intended lock period? How was this duration determined?- Are these values (especially the deposit amounts) in a specific denomination? If so, please specify the denomination in a comment.
protocol/x/clob/keeper/clob_pair.go (2)
69-71: LGTM: Improved code organizationThe change to use
SetClobPairinstead of directly writing to the state is a good improvement. It promotes code reuse and maintainability by centralizing the logic for setting a CLOB pair in the state.
560-560: LGTM: Consistent use of renamed functionThe change to use
SetClobPairinstead ofsetClobPairis consistent with the earlier modifications. This maintains the integrity of the codebase and ensures that the public function is used throughout.protocol/app/app.go (2)
Line range hint
1-1718: Summary: VaultKeeper integration looks good.The changes in this file are minimal and focused, adding the
VaultKeeperto theListingKeeperinitialization. This aligns well with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. No other changes appear necessary in this file for this integration.
1209-1209: LGTM. Verify VaultKeeper integration.The addition of
app.VaultKeeperto theListingKeeperinitialization is consistent with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. This change appears correct and is consistently applied in both instances.To ensure the integration is complete, please run the following script to check for any other places where
VaultKeepermight need to be added:Also applies to: 1218-1218
Verification successful
VaultKeeper integration verified successfully.
All instances ofVaultKeeperhave been appropriately integrated into the listing modules and related areas. No additional integration points were identified.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other potential places where VaultKeeper might need to be integrated. # Search for ListingKeeper initialization or usage rg --type go -n 'ListingKeeper.*NewKeeper|NewAppModule.*ListingKeeper' # Search for VaultKeeper usage in listing-related files rg --type go -n 'VaultKeeper' protocol/x/listingLength of output: 1139
protocol/testutil/constants/genesis.go (1)
876-881: New listing parameters addedThe
listingsection has been updated with new parameters:
hard_cap_for_marketsis set to 500.- A new
listing_vault_deposit_paramsstructure has been added with the following fields:
new_vault_deposit_amount: "10000"main_vault_deposit_amount: "0"num_blocks_to_lock_shares: 2592000These changes align with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. The
new_vault_deposit_amountof 10000 ensures that every market listing will deposit a minimum amount into the Megavault, providing immediate liquidity to the market.To ensure these changes are consistent across the codebase, let's verify if these new parameters are used in other files:
Verification successful
Listing Parameters Verified Successfully
All newly added listing parameters are consistently used across the codebase, ensuring proper integration and functionality.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of new listing parameters echo "Searching for hard_cap_for_markets usage:" rg "hard_cap_for_markets" echo "\nSearching for listing_vault_deposit_params usage:" rg "listing_vault_deposit_params" echo "\nSearching for new_vault_deposit_amount usage:" rg "new_vault_deposit_amount" echo "\nSearching for main_vault_deposit_amount usage:" rg "main_vault_deposit_amount" echo "\nSearching for num_blocks_to_lock_shares usage:" rg "num_blocks_to_lock_shares"Length of output: 6015
protocol/testing/genesis.sh (1)
2261-2267: New "Listing" configuration addedA new section for "Listing" configuration has been added to the
edit_genesisfunction. This section sets up parameters for market listings:
- A hard cap for markets is set to 500.
- Default listing vault deposit parameters are configured:
- New vault deposit amount: 10,000 USDC
- Main vault deposit amount: 0 USDC
- Number of blocks to lock shares: 2,592,000 (equivalent to 30 days)
These changes appear to be implementing a new feature or adjusting existing listing mechanics. The values seem reasonable, but it's important to verify that they align with the intended design and any related documentation.
To ensure these changes are consistent with other parts of the codebase, let's check for any related configurations or usages:
Verification successful
Corrected Shell Script for Searching Listing Configurations
The previous script failed because
bashis not a recognized file type inrg. Here's the corrected version that targets shell scripts:
Listing Configuration Verified Successfully
The changes to the "Listing" configuration in
protocol/testing/genesis.shhave been reviewed. No additional occurrences of listing-related configurations were found in the codebase, ensuring that the updates are isolated and consistent.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other occurrences of listing-related configurations rg --type bash -i "listing|vault deposit|hard cap"Length of output: 81
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other occurrences of listing-related configurations rg --type sh -i "listing|vault deposit|hard cap"Length of output: 805
protocol/x/listing/types/expected_keepers.go (2)
4-7: Appropriate imports for new interfaceThe added imports
'math/big'and'vaulttypes'are necessary for the types used in the newVaultKeeperinterface methods.
38-38:⚠️ Potential issueClarify the necessity and distinct functionality of
SetClobPairThe method
SetClobPairhas been added to theClobKeeperinterface. Given that the interface already includesCreateClobPair, please ensure thatSetClobPairserves a distinct purpose and does not duplicate the functionality ofCreateClobPair. IfSetClobPairis intended to update an existingClobPair, consider naming it accordingly for clarity.Run the following script to verify the usage and purpose of
SetClobPairand check for any potential duplication withCreateClobPair:protocol/x/listing/keeper/msg_create_market_permissionless_test.go (3)
4-4: Importing 'math/big' is appropriateThe addition of
"math/big"import is necessary for handling*big.Inttypes in the test cases.
27-27: Addition of 'balance' field enhances test flexibilityIncluding the
balance *big.Intfield in the test case struct allows each test to specify a custom balance, improving test coverage and flexibility.
63-94: Correctly initializing genesis state with subaccounts and balancesThe custom genesis document setup initializes the vault and Alice's subaccounts with specified balances, ensuring the tests run with accurate initial conditions.
protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go (4)
5-11: Imports added appropriately for new functionalityThe newly added imports (
math/big,dtypes,vaulttypes,satypes) are necessary for theDepositToMegavaultforPMLfunction and related operations.
111-112: Ensure ClobPair is properly persisted withSetClobPairThe addition of
k.ClobKeeper.SetClobPair(ctx, clobPair)ensures that theClobPairis stored in the state after creation, which is essential for the ClobPair to function correctly.
243-251: Verify that the correct number of shares are being lockedThe
LockSharesfunction locks the total number of minted shares, which are minted based on thetotalDepositAmount. However, only theNewVaultDepositAmountis allocated to the new market vault. Ensure that locking all minted shares is intended, or adjust to lock only the shares corresponding to the new vault deposit.To confirm that the correct number of shares are being locked, check the relationship between
mintedSharesand the amounts deposited.Do you need assistance in adjusting the locked shares to correspond only to the
NewVaultDepositAmount? I can help generate the necessary code changes or open a GitHub issue to track this task.
258-259: Ensure correct vault status is set when activating the vaultSetting the vault status to
VAULT_STATUS_QUOTINGactivates it for quoting. Confirm that this is the intended status at this point in the workflow.protocol/x/vault/keeper/vault.go (1)
324-325: Avoid dereferencing a pointer without checking for nilWhen accessing '*vaultId.ToSubaccountId()', ensure that 'ToSubaccountId()' does not return a nil pointer to prevent potential runtime panics.
Verify that 'vaultId.ToSubaccountId()' never returns nil:
protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing_test.go (2)
393-395: Use Consistent Subaccount NumberingIn the subaccount ID, the
Numberfield is set to0. Ensure that this numbering is consistent with other tests and the expected default subaccount for the user. If there are multiple subaccounts, specifying the correct one is crucial for accurate testing.
346-382: Verify Genesis State Initialization for All Required ModulesThe custom genesis state initialization might be missing configurations for modules that could impact the test outcomes. Ensure that all necessary modules, such as
assets,vault, and any others involved in the test, are properly initialized with their default or required states.Run the following script to list all initialized modules and verify their states:
| if err := k.SetListingVaultDepositParams(ctx, genState.ListingVaultDepositParams); err != nil { | ||
| panic(err) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
ExportGenesis Function Missing ListingVaultDepositParams
The ExportGenesis function does not include ListingVaultDepositParams, which prevents the export of the newly set parameters.
Action Required:
- Update the
ExportGenesisfunction to includeListingVaultDepositParamsin the returned genesis state.
Example update:
func ExportGenesis(ctx sdk.Context, k keeper.Keeper) *types.GenesisState {
genesis := types.DefaultGenesis()
genesis.HardCapForMarkets = k.GetMarketsHardCap(ctx)
genesis.ListingVaultDepositParams = k.GetListingVaultDepositParams(ctx)
return genesis
}Analysis chain
LGTM with suggestions for improvement
The addition of SetListingVaultDepositParams aligns well with the PR objectives of integrating Megavault into PML. The error handling is consistent with the existing pattern in the function.
Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of setting the listing vault deposit parameters.
- Update the
ExportGenesisfunction to include the newListingVaultDepositParamsin the returned genesis state.
Consider updating the ExportGenesis function as follows:
func ExportGenesis(ctx sdk.Context, k keeper.Keeper) *types.GenesisState {
genesis := types.DefaultGenesis()
genesis.HardCapForMarkets = k.GetMarketsHardCap(ctx)
genesis.ListingVaultDepositParams = k.GetListingVaultDepositParams(ctx)
return genesis
}To ensure the correctness and completeness of the implementation, please run the following verification:
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the implementation of ListingVaultDepositParams and related functions
# Check if ListingVaultDepositParams is defined in GenesisState
echo "Checking GenesisState definition:"
rg --type go "type GenesisState struct" -A 20 protocol/x/listing/types
# Verify the implementation of SetListingVaultDepositParams in the keeper
echo "\nChecking SetListingVaultDepositParams implementation:"
rg --type go "func \(k Keeper\) SetListingVaultDepositParams" -A 10 protocol/x/listing/keeper
# Check for the existence of GetListingVaultDepositParams in the keeper
echo "\nChecking for GetListingVaultDepositParams:"
rg --type go "func \(k Keeper\) GetListingVaultDepositParams" -A 10 protocol/x/listing/keeper
Length of output: 3965
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify that ExportGenesis includes ListingVaultDepositParams
echo "Checking ExportGenesis function implementation:"
rg --type go "func ExportGenesis" -A 15 protocol/x/listing/genesis.go
Length of output: 304
| err = k.Keeper.DepositToMegavaultforPML(ctx, *msg.SubaccountId, clobPairId) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| k.Logger(ctx).Error("failed to deposit to megavault for PML market", "error", err) | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
New Megavault deposit functionality looks good, with minor suggestions
The addition of the DepositToMegavaultforPML function call aligns well with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. The error handling is consistent with the existing code style.
However, there are a few points to address:
- Typo in Function Name: The function name
DepositToMegavaultforPMLcontains a typo. It should be renamed toDepositToMegavaultForPMLto follow Go naming conventions. - TODO Comment: The TODO comment
// TODO: vault deposit for PMLsuggests that there might be additional work or considerations needed for this implementation. Should this be addressed before merging?
- err = k.Keeper.DepositToMegavaultforPML(ctx, *msg.SubaccountId, clobPairId)
+ err = k.Keeper.DepositToMegavaultForPML(ctx, *msg.SubaccountId, clobPairId)Analysis chain
New Megavault deposit functionality looks good, with minor suggestions
The addition of the DepositToMegavaultforPML function call aligns well with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. The error handling is consistent with the existing code style.
However, there are a few points to address:
- There's a typo in the function name: "forPML" should be "ForPML" to follow Go naming conventions.
- The TODO comment above the new code suggests that this implementation might be temporary or needs further refinement. Should this be addressed before merging?
Fix the typo in the function name:
- err = k.Keeper.DepositToMegavaultforPML(ctx, *msg.SubaccountId, clobPairId)
+ err = k.Keeper.DepositToMegavaultForPML(ctx, *msg.SubaccountId, clobPairId)Let's verify the existence and implementation of the DepositToMegavaultforPML function:
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the implementation of DepositToMegavaultforPML function
# Test: Search for the function definition
rg --type go -A 10 'func \(k .*Keeper\) DepositToMegavault(for|For)PML'
Length of output: 776
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for TODO comments in msg_create_market_permissionless.go
rg 'TODO' protocol/x/listing/keeper/msg_create_market_permissionless.go
Length of output: 103
| @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ func NewKeeper( | |||
| clobKeeper types.ClobKeeper, | |||
| marketMapKeeper types.MarketMapKeeper, | |||
| perpetualsKeeper types.PerpetualsKeeper, | |||
| vaultKeeper types.VaultKeeper, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Additional NewKeeper Instances Missing vaultKeeper Parameter
The verification revealed that only the protocol/x/listing/keeper/keeper.go file has been updated to include the vaultKeeper parameter in the NewKeeper function. Other modules still invoke NewKeeper without this parameter, which may lead to inconsistencies or runtime issues.
Modules to Address:
- protocol/x/vest/keeper/keeper.go
- protocol/x/clob/keeper/keeper.go
- protocol/x/vault/keeper/keeper.go
- protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/keeper.go
- ... (and others as listed in the script output)
Analysis chain
LGTM. Verify NewKeeper usage across the codebase.
The changes to the NewKeeper function are consistent with the addition of the VaultKeeper field to the Keeper struct. The new parameter allows for proper dependency injection, which is good for modularity and testability.
To ensure that all calls to NewKeeper have been updated to include the vaultKeeper parameter, run the following script:
Please review the output to confirm that all NewKeeper calls have been updated correctly.
Also applies to: 45-45
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify all calls to NewKeeper include the vaultKeeper parameter
echo "Checking NewKeeper function calls:"
rg --type go -e 'NewKeeper\s*\(' -A 10
Length of output: 47020
| err := k.Keeper.AllocateToVault(ctx, msg.VaultId, msg.QuoteQuantums.BigInt()) | ||
| if err != nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Enhance error handling by wrapping the error with additional context
Currently, if k.Keeper.AllocateToVault returns an error, it is returned directly. Wrapping the error with additional context can improve debuggability by providing more information about the failure.
Consider modifying the error handling as follows:
if err != nil {
- return nil, err
+ return nil, errorsmod.Wrapf(err, "failed to allocate to vault %s", msg.VaultId)
}Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
💡 Codebase verification
AllocateToVault method in Keeper is missing necessary validations
- The
AllocateToVaultmethod inKeeperdoes not include the required validations such as:- Validating the existence of the vault.
- Initializing vault parameters if they are not set.
- Handling specific business logic related to vault allocation.
Analysis chain
Ensure AllocateToVault includes all necessary validations
The previous inline validations and operations have been replaced with a call to k.Keeper.AllocateToVault. It's important to verify that this method internally performs all the required checks, such as:
- Validating the existence of the vault.
- Initializing vault parameters if they are not set.
- Handling any specific business logic related to vault allocation.
Run the following script to confirm that AllocateToVault includes the necessary validations:
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that AllocateToVault method includes necessary validations.
# Search for the implementation of AllocateToVault in the Keeper.
rg --type go -A 20 'func \(k Keeper\) AllocateToVault\(ctx'
# Expected: The method should contain validations for vault existence and initialization.
Length of output: 61
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Locate the AllocateToVault method within the Keeper using ast-grep.
# Search for the AllocateToVault method in the Keeper with any parameters.
ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'func (k Keeper) AllocateToVault($_)' .
Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search the entire Go codebase for the AllocateToVault method.
rg --type go 'AllocateToVault'
Length of output: 11699
| type VaultKeeper interface { | ||
| DepositToMegavault( | ||
| ctx sdk.Context, | ||
| fromSubaccount satypes.SubaccountId, | ||
| quoteQuantums *big.Int, | ||
| ) (mintedShares *big.Int, err error) | ||
| AllocateToVault( | ||
| ctx sdk.Context, | ||
| vaultId vaulttypes.VaultId, | ||
| quantums *big.Int, | ||
| ) error | ||
| LockShares( | ||
| ctx sdk.Context, | ||
| ownerAddress string, | ||
| sharesToLock vaulttypes.NumShares, | ||
| tilBlock uint32, | ||
| ) error | ||
| SetVaultParams( | ||
| ctx sdk.Context, | ||
| vaultId vaulttypes.VaultId, | ||
| vaultParams vaulttypes.VaultParams, | ||
| ) error | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve parameter naming for clarity and consistency
In the VaultKeeper interface methods, consider the following suggestions:
-
Rename
tilBlocktountilBlockin theLockSharesmethod for better readability and to avoid ambiguity. -
Standardize quantity parameter names: Both
quoteQuantumsinDepositToMegavaultandquantumsinAllocateToVaultrepresent amounts of quantums. If they refer to the same type of quantity, consider using a consistent parameter name for clarity. -
Ensure consistent address parameter naming: The methods use
fromSubaccountandownerAddressto refer to subaccount identifiers or owner addresses. To improve consistency, consider standardizing these parameter names, such as usingownerSubaccountorownerSubaccountId.
| // Get the listing vault deposit params | ||
| vaultDepositParams := k.GetListingVaultDepositParams(ctx) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle potential errors when retrieving vault deposit parameters
The function retrieves the vault deposit parameters without handling the case where they might be unset or invalid. If GetListingVaultDepositParams fails to retrieve valid parameters, it could lead to a panic or unintended behavior.
Consider adding error handling to ensure that vaultDepositParams are valid:
vaultDepositParams := k.GetListingVaultDepositParams(ctx)
if vaultDepositParams == nil {
return errors.New("vault deposit parameters are not set")
}Or handle the case appropriately based on how GetListingVaultDepositParams behaves when parameters are missing.
| uint32(ctx.BlockHeight())+vaultDepositParams.NumBlocksToLockShares, | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential integer overflow when converting block height to uint32
Casting ctx.BlockHeight() from int64 to uint32 may cause an integer overflow if the block height exceeds the maximum value of a uint32. This could lead to incorrect share lock expiration times.
Consider using uint64 for the lock expiration calculation to prevent overflow:
- uint32(ctx.BlockHeight()) + vaultDepositParams.NumBlocksToLockShares,
+ uint64(ctx.BlockHeight()) + uint64(vaultDepositParams.NumBlocksToLockShares),And ensure that the LockShares method accepts a uint64 parameter for the lock expiration block height.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
protocol/x/vault/keeper/vault.go
Outdated
| quantums *big.Int, | ||
| ) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Validate 'quantums' is positive and within 'uint64' range
Although the comment mentions that 'quantums' is validated to be positive above, there is no actual validation in the code to ensure 'quantums' is positive and does not exceed the 'uint64' range. This could lead to unexpected behavior or runtime errors when calling 'quantums.Uint64()'.
To fix this issue, add validation for 'quantums' before proceeding with the transfer:
// Validate that 'quantums' is positive
if quantums.Sign() <= 0 {
return errorsmod.Wrap(types.ErrInvalidAmount, "quantums must be positive")
}
// Ensure 'quantums' does not exceed 'uint64' max value
if !quantums.IsUint64() {
return errorsmod.Wrap(types.ErrInvalidAmount, "quantums exceeds uint64 max value")
}| }, | ||
| "failure - insufficient balance": { | ||
| address: constants.AliceAccAddress.String(), | ||
| balance: big.NewInt(0), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid Zero Balance in Initialization for Insufficient Balance Test
In the "failure - insufficient balance" test case, the balance is set to big.NewInt(0). If the balance is zero, the user might not have an open position at all. Consider setting a minimal positive balance that is less than the required deposit amount to simulate insufficient funds more realistically.
Apply this diff to adjust the balance:
- balance: big.NewInt(0),
+ balance: big.NewInt(10_000), // Less than required deposit amountCommittable 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.
| balance: big.NewInt(0), | |
| balance: big.NewInt(10_000), // Less than required deposit amount |
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto (1)
15-17: LGTM: New field correctly added for PML Megavault integration.The new
listing_vault_deposit_paramsfield is appropriately added to theGenesisStatemessage, aligning with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. The use ofgogoproto.nullable = falseensures this field must always be present.Consider expanding the comment to provide more context:
- // listing_vault_deposit_params is the params for PML megavault deposits + // listing_vault_deposit_params defines the parameters for Protocol Market Liquidity (PML) Megavault deposits
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (5)
- indexer/packages/v4-protos/src/codegen/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.ts (6 hunks)
- proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto (1 hunks)
- protocol/scripts/genesis/sample_pregenesis.json (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing_test.go (3 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing_test.go
Additional context used
buf
proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto
4-4: import "gogoproto/gogo.proto": file does not exist
(COMPILE)
Additional comments not posted (11)
proto/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.proto (2)
1-18: LGTM: File structure and consistency maintained.The changes to this protobuf file are minimal and focused on adding the new field for Megavault integration. The overall file structure remains consistent with protobuf best practices, and existing definitions are preserved.
Tools
buf
4-4: import "gogoproto/gogo.proto": file does not exist
(COMPILE)
4-5: LGTM: New imports are appropriate for the changes.The new import statements are correctly added to support the new field and gogo/protobuf extensions.
Regarding the static analysis warning about "gogoproto/gogo.proto" not existing, this is likely a false positive. However, let's verify the gogo/protobuf setup:
Tools
buf
4-4: import "gogoproto/gogo.proto": file does not exist
(COMPILE)
protocol/scripts/genesis/sample_pregenesis.json (2)
873-877: New vault deposit parameters added for listings.A new
listing_vault_deposit_paramsobject has been introduced with the following parameters:
main_vault_deposit_amount: "0"new_vault_deposit_amount: "10000"num_blocks_to_lock_shares: 2592000These parameters align with the PR objective of integrating Megavault into the PML system. They define the deposit amounts for main and new vaults, as well as the number of blocks to lock shares.
To ensure these new parameters are properly utilized, please run the following script to check for their usage in the codebase:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of new vault deposit parameters rg --type go --type rust "main_vault_deposit_amount|new_vault_deposit_amount|num_blocks_to_lock_shares"
872-872: Verify the impact of increasing the hard cap for markets.The
hard_cap_for_marketsvalue has been increased from 0 to 500. This change allows for a maximum of 500 markets to be listed.Please run the following script to check if there are any hardcoded limits elsewhere in the codebase that might conflict with this new value:
Verification successful
Verified: Increasing
hard_cap_for_marketsto 500 does not conflict with any existing hardcoded limits.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for potential hardcoded market limits rg --type go --type rust "(?i)(max.*markets|market.*limit|num.*markets)"Length of output: 1206
indexer/packages/v4-protos/src/codegen/dydxprotocol/listing/genesis.ts (7)
1-1: ImportListingVaultDepositParamsCorrectlyThe import statement correctly adds
ListingVaultDepositParamsandListingVaultDepositParamsSDKTypefrom"./params", which is necessary for integrating the Megavault deposit parameters into theGenesisState.
12-14: AddlistingVaultDepositParamstoGenesisStateInterfaceThe
listingVaultDepositParamsproperty is appropriately added to theGenesisStateinterface to include the PML Megavault deposit parameters, aligning with the integration objectives.
24-26: Addlisting_vault_deposit_paramstoGenesisStateSDKTypeInterfaceThe
listing_vault_deposit_paramsproperty is correctly added to theGenesisStateSDKTypeinterface, ensuring consistency between the SDK types and the main interface.
31-32: InitializelistingVaultDepositParamsincreateBaseGenesisStateProperly initializing
listingVaultDepositParamstoundefinedincreateBaseGenesisStateensures that the default genesis state is accurately represented.
42-45: Handle Encoding oflistingVaultDepositParamsThe
encodefunction correctly includes logic to serializelistingVaultDepositParamswhen it is defined, which is essential for proper data transmission.
62-65: Handle Decoding oflistingVaultDepositParamsThe
decodefunction is appropriately updated to deserializelistingVaultDepositParams, ensuring that the genesis state is reconstructed accurately from the encoded data.
78-78: UpdatefromPartialto IncludelistingVaultDepositParamsThe
fromPartialfunction correctly handleslistingVaultDepositParams, allowing for the creation ofGenesisStateinstances from partial data, which enhances flexibility in state management.
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
protocol/x/listing/types/params.go (1)
Line range hint
14-27: Consider enhancing validation logic for the increased deposit amount.While the current
Validatefunction still applies to the new deposit amount, given the significant increase, consider adding more specific validation:
- Add an upper bound check for
NewVaultDepositAmountto prevent potential errors or overflow issues.- Consider validating that
NewVaultDepositAmountis greater than or equal toMainVaultDepositAmount, if that's an invariant that should be maintained.Here's a suggested enhancement to the
Validatefunction:func (p ListingVaultDepositParams) Validate() error { // Check for negative values if p.NewVaultDepositAmount.Sign() <= 0 || p.MainVaultDepositAmount.Sign() < 0 { return ErrInvalidDepositAmount } // Add an upper bound check (adjust the max value as needed) maxDepositAmount := dtypes.NewIntFromUint64(100_000_000_000) // 100 billion USDC if p.NewVaultDepositAmount.GT(maxDepositAmount) { return fmt.Errorf("NewVaultDepositAmount exceeds maximum allowed value") } // Ensure NewVaultDepositAmount is greater than or equal to MainVaultDepositAmount if p.NewVaultDepositAmount.LT(p.MainVaultDepositAmount) { return fmt.Errorf("NewVaultDepositAmount must be greater than or equal to MainVaultDepositAmount") } // Check number of blocks to lock shares if p.NumBlocksToLockShares <= 0 { return ErrInvalidNumBlocksToLockShares } return nil }Please adjust the
maxDepositAmountand other checks according to your specific requirements and constraints.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
- protocol/app/testdata/default_genesis_state.json (1 hunks)
- protocol/scripts/genesis/sample_pregenesis.json (1 hunks)
- protocol/testing/genesis.sh (1 hunks)
- protocol/testutil/constants/genesis.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/msg_create_market_permissionless.go (1 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/types/params.go (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (6)
- protocol/app/testdata/default_genesis_state.json
- protocol/scripts/genesis/sample_pregenesis.json
- protocol/testing/genesis.sh
- protocol/testutil/constants/genesis.go
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/msg_create_market_permissionless.go
| @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ import "github.com/dydxprotocol/v4-chain/protocol/dtypes" | |||
| // DefaultParams defines the default parameters for listing vault deposits. | |||
| func DefaultParams() ListingVaultDepositParams { | |||
| return ListingVaultDepositParams{ | |||
| NewVaultDepositAmount: dtypes.NewIntFromUint64(10_000), | |||
| NewVaultDepositAmount: dtypes.NewIntFromUint64(10_000_000_000), // 10_000 USDC | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Outdated NewVaultDepositAmount values found in test files.
The NewVaultDepositAmount has been updated to 10_000_000_000 in protocol/x/listing/types/params.go, but the following test files still reference the old value 10_000:
protocol/x/listing/keeper/msg_set_listing_vault_deposit_params_test.go(4 occurrences)
Actions Required:
- Update the test cases to use
10_000_000_000instead of10_000to ensure consistency with the updated parameter. - Review the test logic to confirm that the increased deposit amount is handled correctly and that tests accurately reflect the intended behavior.
🔗 Analysis chain
Significant increase in NewVaultDepositAmount requires careful consideration and documentation update.
The NewVaultDepositAmount has been increased from 10,000 to 10,000,000,000, which is a 1,000,000x increase. This change has several implications:
-
The significant increase could have major impacts on the system's economics and user behavior. Please ensure this aligns with the intended design and has been thoroughly analyzed for potential side effects.
-
The comment "10_000 USDC" is now incorrect and should be updated to "10_000_000_000 USDC" for accuracy.
-
Given the magnitude of this change, it would be beneficial to add a brief comment explaining the rationale behind this significant increase, either in the code or in the PR description.
Please update the comment to reflect the new amount:
- NewVaultDepositAmount: dtypes.NewIntFromUint64(10_000_000_000), // 10_000 USDC
+ NewVaultDepositAmount: dtypes.NewIntFromUint64(10_000_000_000), // 10_000_000_000 USDCTo ensure this change is consistent across the codebase, please run the following command:
This will help identify any other places where the old value might still be used or referenced.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other occurrences of NewVaultDepositAmount to ensure consistency
rg --type go "NewVaultDepositAmount.*10_000" .
Length of output: 707
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
protocol/x/vault/keeper/params.go (1)
120-132: LGTM with suggestions for improvementThe
SetVaultStatusmethod is well-implemented and integrates nicely with existing code. However, consider the following improvements:
- Add validation for the
statusparameter to ensure only valid statuses are set.- Consider handling side effects of status changes, such as canceling orders for deactivated vaults (similar to what's done in
SetVaultParams).- Add a comment explaining the method's purpose and any important considerations.
Here's a suggested implementation incorporating these improvements:
// SetVaultStatus updates the status of a vault's parameters. // It handles side effects of status changes, such as canceling orders for deactivated vaults. func (k Keeper) SetVaultStatus( ctx sdk.Context, vaultId types.VaultId, status types.VaultStatus, ) error { if err := status.Validate(); err != nil { return err } vaultParams, exists := k.GetVaultParams(ctx, vaultId) if !exists { return types.ErrVaultParamsNotFound } if status == types.VaultStatus_VAULT_STATUS_DEACTIVATED || status == types.VaultStatus_VAULT_STATUS_STAND_BY { // Handle side effects (e.g., cancel existing orders) if err := k.handleVaultDeactivation(ctx, vaultId); err != nil { return err } } vaultParams.Status = status return k.SetVaultParams(ctx, vaultId, vaultParams) } func (k Keeper) handleVaultDeactivation(ctx sdk.Context, vaultId types.VaultId) error { // Implementation for handling side effects // (e.g., canceling orders, similar to what's in SetVaultParams) return nil }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- protocol/x/clob/keeper/clob_pair.go (4 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing_test.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/listing/types/expected_keepers.go (3 hunks)
- protocol/x/vault/keeper/params.go (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- protocol/x/clob/keeper/clob_pair.go
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing.go
- protocol/x/listing/keeper/listing_test.go
- protocol/x/listing/types/expected_keepers.go
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]>
|
@Mergifyio backport release/protocol/v7.x |
✅ Backports have been created
|
Signed-off-by: Shrenuj Bansal <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 0760d3e)
Co-authored-by: shrenujb <[email protected]>
Changelist
These are the changes to integrate Megavault into PML.
Every market listing will deposit a min amount into the megavault in order to provide immediate liquidity into the market
Test Plan
Added tests
Author/Reviewer Checklist
state-breakinglabel.indexer-postgres-breakinglabel.PrepareProposalorProcessProposal, manually add the labelproposal-breaking.feature:[feature-name].backport/[branch-name].refactor,chore,bug.Summary by CodeRabbit