feat: add cronos lifidex aggregator address #862
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🔇 Additional comments (3)config/dexs.json (3)Line range hint The addition of the new DEX address ✅ Verification successfulThe new Evmos DEX address has been verified successfully The address
🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the contract deployment and integration status of the new Evmos DEX address
# Test 1: Check if this address appears elsewhere in the config
echo "Checking for duplicate addresses..."
rg -w "0x3Bc1F48740a5D6dffAc36FAF4c9905a941509348"
# Test 2: Verify address format
if [[ "0x3Bc1F48740a5D6dffAc36FAF4c9905a941509348" =~ ^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$ ]]; then
echo "Address format is valid"
else
echo "Invalid address format"
fi
Length of output: 329 Line range hint The configuration maintains proper JSON structure and follows the established pattern of organizing networks alphabetically. The separation between active and test networks is clear. ✅ Verification successfulBased on the shell script results, I can generate the final response since we have verified:
Configuration structure verified successfully The configuration file maintains proper JSON structure, has no duplicate addresses within networks, and all addresses follow the correct Ethereum address format. The networks are organized alphabetically with a clear separation between active and test networks. 🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the JSON structure and network organization
# Test 1: Validate JSON format
jq '.' config/dexs.json > /dev/null && echo "JSON is valid" || echo "JSON is invalid"
# Test 2: Check for duplicate addresses within each network
jq -r 'to_entries[] | select(.value | type == "array") | .key as $network | .value[] | [$network, .] | @tsv' config/dexs.json | sort | uniq -d
# Test 3: Verify address format for all entries
jq -r '.[][] | select(type == "string")' config/dexs.json | grep -vE '^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$' || echo "All addresses are valid"
Length of output: 355
The addition of the new DEX address ✅ Verification successfulLet me verify the JSON structure and network ordering to ensure complete validation. The new Cronos DEX address addition is valid and properly structured The verification confirms:
🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the contract deployment and integration status of the new Cronos DEX address
# Test 1: Check if this address appears elsewhere in the config
echo "Checking for duplicate addresses..."
rg -w "0x3a629404258dF01bef29Dd5d428508D92e207bD0"
# Test 2: Verify address format
if [[ "0x3a629404258dF01bef29Dd5d428508D92e207bD0" =~ ^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$ ]]; then
echo "Address format is valid"
else
echo "Invalid address format"
fi
Length of output: 328 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Check JSON validity and structure
echo "Checking JSON validity..."
cat config/dexs.json | jq '.' > /dev/null && echo "JSON is valid"
# Get the network names in order to verify alphabetical sorting
echo -e "\nNetwork names in order:"
cat config/dexs.json | jq -r 'keys[]'
# Check if the address appears in correct network section
echo -e "\nVerifying address location in Cronos network:"
cat config/dexs.json | jq -r '.cronos[]' | grep -A 1 -B 1 "0x3a629404258dF01bef29Dd5d428508D92e207bD0"
Length of output: 974 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 (
|
Test Coverage ReportLine Coverage: 76.10% (1675 / 2201 lines) |
Which Jira task belongs to this PR?
Why did I implement it this way?
Checklist before requesting a review
Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)