Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Minor style improvements in Law-Stone Smart Contract #608

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 7, 2024
Merged

Conversation

ccamel
Copy link
Member

@ccamel ccamel commented Aug 7, 2024

Minor style improvements in Law-Stone Smart Contract:

  • applied functional style improvements (removal of mut)
  • suppressed deprecation warnings in tests due to the deprecation of SubMsgResponse::data in CosmWasm v2.0, following the recent upgrade.
  • updated the test configuration to treat warnings as errors, as part of quality improvement.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Introduced stricter compilation rules for tests, requiring that all warnings be addressed before tests pass.
    • Improved organization and readability of code within the contract module, enhancing maintainability without altering existing functionality.

@ccamel ccamel self-assigned this Aug 7, 2024
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Aug 7, 2024

Walkthrough

The recent changes enhance the Rust codebase by implementing stricter compilation rules during testing and reorganizing the structure of the code for better readability. The addition of RUSTFLAGS = "-D warnings" ensures warnings are treated as errors, promoting code quality. Additionally, the restructuring of imports and code logic in contract.rs improves maintainability while preserving functionality.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
Makefile.toml Added environment variable to treat warnings as errors during tests.
contracts/axone-law-stone/src/contract.rs Reorganized imports and refactored code for clarity. Streamlined logic in reply module using iterators.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant TestRunner
    participant Cargo
    participant Codebase

    TestRunner->>Cargo: Run Tests
    Cargo->>Codebase: Check Code for Warnings
    Codebase-->>Cargo: Return Warnings/Errors
    alt Warnings Present
        Cargo-->>TestRunner: Fail Tests
    else No Warnings
        Cargo-->>TestRunner: Pass Tests
    end
Loading

Poem

🐇 In the code's burrow, changes bloom,
Warnings now whisper, "Clear the room!"
Imports align like stars in the night,
Rust's code shines, oh what a sight!
With every test, our journey's bright,
Hopping with joy, we code with delight! 🌟


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?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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 as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 7, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Files Coverage Δ
contracts/axone-law-stone/src/contract.rs 96.10% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

@bot-anik
Copy link
Member

bot-anik commented Aug 7, 2024

size-limit report 📦

Path Size
target/wasm32-unknown-unknown/release/axone_objectarium.wasm 458.07 KB (0%)
target/wasm32-unknown-unknown/release/axone_law_stone.wasm 648.51 KB (+0.1% 🔺)
target/wasm32-unknown-unknown/release/axone_cognitarium.wasm 831.35 KB (0%)
target/wasm32-unknown-unknown/release/axone_dataverse.wasm 670.4 KB (0%)

@ccamel ccamel marked this pull request as ready for review August 7, 2024 13:29
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between a4f4117 and eac95ad.

Files selected for processing (2)
  • Makefile.toml (1 hunks)
  • contracts/axone-law-stone/src/contract.rs (10 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (8)
Makefile.toml (1)

60-60: LGTM! Enforcing stricter compilation rules.

The addition of RUSTFLAGS = "-D warnings" under the testing command ensures that warnings are treated as errors, promoting code quality.

contracts/axone-law-stone/src/contract.rs (7)

10-14: LGTM! Improved import organization.

The rearrangement of import statements enhances code readability and maintainability.


69-72: LGTM! Refactored break_stone function.

The use of iterator methods such as filter and map improves the clarity and conciseness of the code.


133-141: LGTM! Improved ask function logic.

The refactoring of the ask function enhances its logic and readability.


206-211: LGTM! Streamlined store_program_reply function.

The refactoring of the store_program_reply function improves clarity and maintainability.


282-284: LGTM! Improved test module imports organization.

The reorganization of test module imports enhances code readability and maintainability.


705-705: LGTM! Allowing deprecated usage in test case.

The addition of #[allow(deprecated)] ensures that the store_program_reply test case remains functional despite deprecation warnings.


792-792: LGTM! Allowing deprecated usage in test case.

The addition of #[allow(deprecated)] ensures that the program_reply_errors test case remains functional despite deprecation warnings.

@ccamel ccamel requested review from amimart and bdeneux August 7, 2024 13:31
Copy link
Member

@amimart amimart left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@bdeneux bdeneux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice ! It's a shame that Cosmwasm didn't offer a second interface without the data attribute (and thus without the deprecated).

@ccamel
Copy link
Member Author

ccamel commented Aug 7, 2024

Cosmwasm didn't offer a second interface without the data attribute (and thus without the deprecated).

Haha, yeah. It’s a bit annoying, but nothing too problematic. I searched around and couldn’t find anything relevant, other than disabling the deprecation warning (as it is shown in the comments btw). I was hoping for a builder or such with default values so we could just skip the deprecated field. But hey, I don’t feel like bugging @webmaster128 about it. 😅

@ccamel ccamel merged commit 169f816 into main Aug 7, 2024
17 checks passed
@ccamel ccamel deleted the style/code-polish branch August 7, 2024 14:40
@webmaster128
Copy link

I see. This only affects testing code, right? Because in the production use case SubMsgResponse is provided by the environment and only consumed in the contract.

What we can do is to create a constructor SubMsgResponse::new which does not have the deprecated field

@bdeneux
Copy link
Contributor

bdeneux commented Aug 7, 2024

Cosmwasm didn't offer a second interface without the data attribute (and thus without the deprecated).

Haha, yeah. It’s a bit annoying, but nothing too problematic. I searched around and couldn’t find anything relevant, other than disabling the deprecation warning (as it is shown in the comments btw).

I understand, it's not problematic at all. It's just a small remark to improve code quality by avoiding warnings and removing them manually. 😉

I see. This only affects testing code, right? Because in the production use case SubMsgResponse is provided by the environment and only consumed in the contract.

@webmaster128 Yes, as far as I saw, it's only in the testing code. Yes, adding constructor without the deprecated field is a good solution! But don't worry about it, I might contribute to the project and add it myself since I'm the one complaining. 😉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants