chore: fix linter issues #13
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several modifications across multiple files, primarily focusing on configuration adjustments, structural changes, and documentation improvements. Key changes include the removal of specific linters from Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Warning Rate limit exceeded@tzdybal has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 11 minutes and 48 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. 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 (
|
RollkitBot
requested review from
a team,
yarikbratashchuk,
MSevey and
Manav-Aggarwal
and removed request for
a team
tzdybal
requested review from
gupadhyaya
and removed request for
MSevey and
Manav-Aggarwal
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
execution_test.go (1)
Line range hint
25-33: Consider adding more detailed documentation for the helper function.The function generates deterministic JWT secrets which is good for testing, but this should be explicitly documented. Consider adding a comment explaining the predictable nature of the generated secret.
+// generateTestJWTSecret creates a deterministic JWT secret for testing purposes. +// It generates a 32-byte hex string where each byte is its index value. +// Note: This is not secure for production use. func generateTestJWTSecret() string {🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint / golangci-lint
[failure] 35-35:
undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
[failure] 38-38:
undefined: NewMockEthAPIintegration_test.go (1)
Line range hint
108-110: Consider implementing a more robust container startup check.The current implementation uses a fixed sleep duration which could be flaky. Consider implementing a retry mechanism that checks container health or service availability.
Example approach:
func waitForContainer(ctx context.Context, t *testing.T, url string) error { client := &http.Client{Timeout: time.Second} deadline := time.Now().Add(30 * time.Second) for time.Now().Before(deadline) { _, err := client.Get(url) if err == nil { return nil } time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) } return fmt.Errorf("container failed to start within timeout") }execution.go (1)
126-126: Document rationale for G115 suppressionsThere are multiple instances of suppressing the G115 gosec linter warning for integer conversions. While these suppressions are valid, consider adding a package-level comment explaining why these conversions are safe to improve maintainability.
Example documentation to add at the package level:
// Note: This package suppresses G115 gosec warnings for specific integer // conversions (Unix timestamps and block heights) as these values are // guaranteed to be within safe ranges in the context of blockchain operations.Also applies to: 224-224, 266-266, 295-295
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.golangci.yml(0 hunks)execution.go(6 hunks)execution_test.go(7 hunks)integration_test.go(4 hunks)mocks/mocks.go(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- .golangci.yml
- mocks/mocks.go
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: lint / golangci-lint
execution_test.go
[failure] 1-1:
: # github.com/rollkit/go-execution-evm_test [github.com/rollkit/go-execution-evm.test]
[failure] 35-35:
undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
[failure] 38-38:
undefined: NewMockEthAPI
[failure] 74-74:
undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
[failure] 77-77:
undefined: NewMockEthAPI
[failure] 125-125:
undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
[failure] 128-128:
undefined: NewMockEthAPI
[failure] 194-194:
undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
[failure] 197-197:
undefined: NewMockEthAPI (typecheck)
🪛 golangci-lint
execution_test.go
1-1: : # github.com/rollkit/go-execution-evm_test [github.com/rollkit/go-execution-evm.test]
./execution_test.go:35:16: undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
./execution_test.go:38:13: undefined: NewMockEthAPI
./execution_test.go:74:16: undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
./execution_test.go:77:13: undefined: NewMockEthAPI
./execution_test.go:125:16: undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
./execution_test.go:128:13: undefined: NewMockEthAPI
./execution_test.go:194:16: undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
./execution_test.go:197:13: undefined: NewMockEthAPI
(typecheck)
🪛 Gitleaks
integration_test.go
29-29: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
execution_test.go (3)
Line range hint 1-23: LGTM! Good practice moving to execution_test package.
Moving to execution_test package is a good practice as it:
- Prevents test code from being imported by other packages
- Tests the package from an external consumer's perspective
178-183: LGTM! Good error handling improvement.
Adding error checking for JSON encoding improves test robustness by catching potential encoding issues early.
35-35:
Missing mock implementations prevent tests from compiling.
The test file uses NewMockEngineAPI and NewMockEthAPI functions that are undefined. According to the PR objectives, mock functionality was moved to the _test package, but the implementations are missing.
Please provide the mock implementations in a separate file (e.g., mock_test.go) within the same execution_test package.
Would you like me to help generate the mock implementations?
Also applies to: 38-38, 74-74, 77-77, 125-125, 128-128, 194-194, 197-197
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint / golangci-lint
[failure] 35-35:
undefined: NewMockEngineAPI
integration_test.go (3)
11-12: LGTM! Import organization improved.
The reordering of testify imports improves code organization.
29-29: Verify test-only usage of JWT secret.
The hardcoded JWT secret and path with //nolint:gosec comments are acceptable for testing purposes. However, please ensure these values are only used in test files and never copied to production code.
Also applies to: 38-38
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks
29-29: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
51-51: LGTM! Improved file permissions for JWT secret.
The change to 0600 permissions enhances security by restricting access to the JWT secret file to owner-only read/write.
execution.go (2)
27-30: LGTM! Clear and helpful error documentation.
The added error documentation follows Go best practices and clearly explains the error conditions.
101-102: Verify if Start() method is still needed
The Start() method has been simplified to just return nil and appears to no longer serve any purpose. Consider:
- Documenting why this method exists if it's required by an interface
- Removing it if it's no longer needed
tzdybal
force-pushed
the
tzdybal/fix_linter
branch
3 times, most recently
from
3607d90 to
4aa92d4
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
mocks_test.go (1)
Line range hint
195-199: Consider consistent error handling approachThe error from
json.NewEncoderis explicitly ignored here, while it's properly handled in the Engine API mock. Consider using the same error handling approach for consistency.- _ = json.NewEncoder(w).Encode(map[string]interface{}{ + err = json.NewEncoder(w).Encode(map[string]interface{}{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": req["id"], "result": resp, }) + require.NoError(t, err)execution_test.go (2)
Line range hint
125-191: Consider enhancing transaction content validationWhile the test covers the basic flow well, consider adding more specific assertions to validate the parsed transaction fields (nonce, gas price, value, etc.) against the mock response data.
Example addition after line 191:
require.Equal(t, "0x123456", txs[0].Data()) require.Equal(t, uint64(0), txs[0].Nonce()) require.Equal(t, big.NewInt(1000000000), txs[0].GasPrice())
Line range hint
194-224: Document the expected block hash valueConsider adding a comment explaining the significance of the hardcoded block hash value
0x4bbb1357b89ddc1b1371f9ae83b72739a1815628f8648665fc332c3f0fb8d853. This would help other developers understand its purpose in the test.+ // expectedBlockHash represents the known block hash for height 1 in the test environment expectedBlockHash := "0x4bbb1357b89ddc1b1371f9ae83b72739a1815628f8648665fc332c3f0fb8d853"integration_test.go (1)
38-38: Consider removing unnecessary nolint directiveThe
//nolint:gosecdirective seems unnecessary forDOCKER_JWTSECRET_PATHas it's just a path constant, not a secret value.- DOCKER_JWTSECRET_PATH = "./docker/jwttoken/" //nolint:gosec // path relative to the test file + DOCKER_JWTSECRET_PATH = "./docker/jwttoken/" // path relative to the test file
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
.golangci.yml(0 hunks).yamllint.yml(1 hunks)README.md(2 hunks)docker/docker-compose.yml(2 hunks)execution.go(6 hunks)execution_test.go(7 hunks)integration_test.go(4 hunks)mocks_test.go(6 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .golangci.yml
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
- .yamllint.yml
- README.md
- docker/docker-compose.yml
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- execution.go
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks
integration_test.go
29-29: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
mocks_test.go (4)
1-1: LGTM! Well-structured package and type definitions
The changes follow Go best practices:
- Appropriate test package naming
- Properly unexported test-only types
- Clean type structure with clear field names
Also applies to: 19-25
95-100: LGTM! Improved error handling for JSON encoding
Good addition of error checking for JSON encoding operations using require.NoError.
Line range hint 53-57: LGTM! Clean forkchoice state handling
The initialization of the unexported forkChoiceState is well-structured with proper field mapping.
205-207: LGTM! Clean helper method implementation
The method correctly returns the unexported type and maintains a clean interface.
execution_test.go (3)
Line range hint 1-22: LGTM! Good package organization
The change to execution_test package is a good practice as it:
- Prevents test code from being imported by other packages
- Helps maintain a clear separation between implementation and test code
Line range hint 35-73: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage
The test case properly validates:
- Chain initialization
- State root verification
- Gas limit checks
- Forkchoice state updates
Line range hint 74-124: LGTM! Well-structured transaction execution test
The test thoroughly validates:
- Transaction execution flow
- State root updates
- Gas usage calculations
- Forkchoice state consistency
integration_test.go (3)
11-13: LGTM: Import organization improved
The testify imports have been properly organized and deduplicated.
29-29: Verify that this JWT secret is for testing only
While the //nolint:gosec directive is appropriate for test constants, please confirm that this JWT secret is not used in any production environment and is solely for testing purposes.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks
29-29: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
51-51: LGTM: Improved file permissions for JWT secret
Good security improvement changing the JWT secret file permissions from 0644 to 0600, restricting access to owner-only read/write.
tzdybal
force-pushed
the
tzdybal/fix_linter
branch
from
4aa92d4 to
9ae422f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
integration_test.go (1)
51-51: Security improvement: Restricted file permissionsGood security practice to use
0600permissions for the JWT secret file, restricting access to owner only.Consider adding cleanup in case of early test failures:
func setupTestRethEngine(t *testing.T) { t.Helper() + // Clean up any leftover files from previous failed tests + _ = os.Remove(DOCKER_JWTSECRET_PATH + DOCKER_JWT_SECRET_FILE)execution.go (1)
101-102: Add documentation for the empty Start methodWhile removing the proxy client implementation is fine, please add a comment explaining why this method exists and returns nil. This helps future maintainers understand the design decision.
+// Start implements the Executor interface. This is a no-op as the client connections +// are established during initialization. func (c *EngineAPIExecutionClient) Start() error { return nil }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
.golangci.yml(0 hunks).yamllint.yml(1 hunks)README.md(2 hunks)docker/docker-compose.yml(2 hunks)execution.go(6 hunks)execution_test.go(7 hunks)integration_test.go(5 hunks)mocks_test.go(6 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .golangci.yml
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- .yamllint.yml
- README.md
- docker/docker-compose.yml
- execution_test.go
- mocks_test.go
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
integration_test.go
29-29: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
integration_test.go (2)
11-12: LGTM: Import organization improved
The reordering of testify imports improves code organization and removes potential duplicates.
29-29: LGTM: Appropriate use of linter annotations
The //nolint:gosec annotations are correctly applied to test-only constants. These are not real secrets but test fixtures, making the annotations appropriate.
Also applies to: 38-38
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
29-29: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
execution.go (2)
27-30: LGTM: Well-documented error variables
The added documentation for error variables follows Go conventions and clearly explains their purpose.
126-126: Consider adding bounds checking for numeric conversions
While disabling the G115 linter warning is acceptable, these conversions could potentially overflow. Consider adding bounds checking to ensure safe conversions:
- For timestamps (lines 126, 224): Ensure they're within reasonable Unix timestamp range
- For block numbers (lines 266, 295): Verify they don't exceed int64.MaxValue
Let's check if there are any existing bounds checks in the codebase:
Example implementation for block number validation:
func (c *EngineAPIExecutionClient) SetFinal(ctx context.Context, height uint64) error {
+ if height > math.MaxInt64 {
+ return fmt.Errorf("block height %d exceeds maximum allowed value", height)
+ }
block, err := c.ethClient.BlockByNumber(ctx, big.NewInt(int64(height)))Also applies to: 224-224, 266-266, 295-295
Overview
Fix linter issues from initial import.
As a bonus, mock was moved to
_testpackage, so it's not exported.Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores
Refactor
EngineAPIExecutionClientby removing unnecessary fields and enhancing documentation.