[Needs Testing] Refactor contract handling in join command to support batch property fetching and improve error handling #180
Conversation
…fetching and improve error handling
Summary of ChangesHello @tuhalf, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request significantly refactors the contract handling logic within the Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request significantly refactors the contract property handling in the join command. It introduces batch fetching of properties from the smart contract, which is a great performance improvement. The logic is now centralized in a contractSync controller, and the startup flow is more robust, applying configuration before starting services. The code is cleaner and more modular.
I've left a few comments:
- A high-severity issue regarding an unseeded random number generator which would make address shuffling predictable.
- A medium-severity issue to improve error message clarity when parsing RPC responses.
- A medium-severity issue about an inconsistency and inefficiency in how blocklists are applied compared to allowlists, suggesting a future refactoring.
Overall, this is a solid improvement to the codebase.
| func applyBlocklist(cfg *config.Config, blocklists []string) { | ||
| cfg.SBlocklists = config.StringValues(blocklists) | ||
| blocklistMap := cfg.Blocklists() | ||
| for addr := range blocklistMap { | ||
| delete(blocklistMap, addr) | ||
| } | ||
| for _, entry := range blocklists { | ||
| addr, err := util.DecodeAddress(entry) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| cfg.Logger.Warn("Skipping invalid blocklist address %q: %v", entry, err) | ||
| continue | ||
| } | ||
| blocklistMap[addr] = true | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function is inconsistent with applyAllowlist and is inefficient. applyAllowlist can directly create a new map and assign it to cfg.Allowlists because it's a public field. Here, because cfg.blocklists is private, you have to use cfg.Blocklists() which might populate a new map from SBlocklists, which you then clear and repopulate. This is redundant.
For better consistency and efficiency, consider making cfg.blocklists public in config.Config (like Allowlists) and then adopting the same implementation pattern as applyAllowlist:
func applyBlocklist(cfg *config.Config, blocklists []string) {
cfg.SBlocklists = config.StringValues(blocklists)
cfg.blocklists = nil // if made public
if len(blocklists) == 0 {
return
}
newBlocklistMap := make(map[util.Address]bool, len(blocklists))
for _, entry := range blocklists {
addr, err := util.DecodeAddress(entry)
if err != nil {
cfg.Logger.Warn("Skipping invalid blocklist address %q: %v", entry, err)
continue
}
newBlocklistMap[addr] = true
}
cfg.blocklists = newBlocklistMap
}Since changing config.Config is outside this file's scope, I'm pointing this out as a medium-severity issue for future refactoring. The current implementation is functionally correct but could be improved.
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
This reverts commit 993ab6a.
|
@tuhalf please ensure the commands are all tested at least once for configuration. |
PR Summary (refs #171 )
Centralized contract perimeter handling into a single controller (contractSync / runContractController*) that batch-fetches all properties once and applies them to control-plane config, ports, and WireGuard. cmd/diode/join.go
Simplified helpers to consume provided property maps only (no internal fetches) and tightened join flow to run an initial sync before starting services. cmd/diode/join.go
Kept service startup consistent while removing redundant fetch paths and the old loops. cmd/diode/join.go