refactor(x/validate): add nil protection
#22902
Conversation
aljo242
requested review from
julienrbrt,
akhilkumarpilli,
kocubinski and
a team
as code owners
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Suggested Reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yml 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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
Documentation and Community
|
|
@aljo242 your pull request is missing a changelog! |
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
x/validate/module.go (1)
Line range hint
58-73: Consider documenting the validation orderThe sequence of validation (custom validators → fee → unordered → signature) seems intentional and could have important implications for security and performance. Consider adding a comment explaining the rationale behind this order.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
x/validate/module.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
x/validate/module.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
x/validate/module.go (2)
60-63: LGTM! Nil check addition is correct and consistent
The added nil check for feeTxValidator follows the same pattern as the existing unorderTxValidator check and prevents potential nil pointer dereferences.
Line range hint 73-73: Consider adding nil check for sigVerification
While the PR's focus is on feeTxValidator, I notice that sigVerification is used without a nil check on the last line. Consider adding similar protection to maintain consistency and prevent potential panics.
Let's verify if sigVerification can be nil in practice:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
x/validate/module.go (1)
Line range hint
74-74: Consider adding nil check for sigVerification.While the PR's focus is on
feeTxValidator, I notice thatsigVerificationis used without a nil check. Consider adding similar protection to maintain consistency and prevent potential issues.- return a.sigVerification.ValidateTx(ctx, tx) + if a.sigVerification != nil { + return a.sigVerification.ValidateTx(ctx, tx) + } + return nil
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
x/validate/module.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
x/validate/module.go (1)
Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
x/validate/module.go (1)
60-63: LGTM! The nil check addition improves robustness.
The added nil check for feeTxValidator prevents potential nil pointer dereference, making the code more robust. The implementation follows the same pattern as the existing unorderTxValidator check.
Let's verify similar patterns across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the validator structs to ensure we have a complete picture.
Let me search for the validator initialization patterns to understand how the nil check aligns with the codebase.
Based on the analysis of the codebase, I can now provide a final response:
The nil check for feeTxValidator follows established patterns and is correctly implemented.
The added nil check for feeTxValidator is consistent with defensive programming practices in the codebase. The implementation:
- Follows the same pattern as other validator checks in the codebase
- Prevents potential nil pointer dereference
- Is consistent with error handling patterns seen in other validator-related code
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for similar validator patterns and potential missing nil checks
# Look for other validator implementations that might need similar protection
# Search for validator struct fields that are pointers
ast-grep --pattern 'type $_ struct {
$$$
$_Validator *$_
$$$
}'
# Search for direct validator usage without nil checks
rg -A 2 '\.ValidateTx\('
Length of output: 3278
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for validator struct definitions and their initialization
ast-grep --pattern 'type $name struct {
$$$
}' x/validate/module.go
# Check how these validators are initialized
rg -A 3 'New.*Validator'
Length of output: 66440
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for validator initialization and usage patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'type $name struct {
feeTxValidator *$_
$$$
}'
# Check for other nil checks on validators
rg 'if.*validator.*!= nil'
Length of output: 3404
There was a problem hiding this comment.
x/validate is only needed in v2, and the feeTxValidator is always instantiated:
cosmos-sdk/x/validate/depinject.go
Line 91 in 932624e
|
Not against the nil check but shouldn't be needed |
julienrbrt
changed the title
nil protection in `x/validatenil protection
julienrbrt
added
the
backport/v0.52.x
julienrbrt
changed the title
nil protectionnil protection
(cherry picked from commit f14cbd2)
Co-authored-by: Alex | Skip <[email protected]>
Description
The
feeTxValidatorinx/validateis a pointer, but is referenced without checking if it is nil or not currently. Just adding a small check.Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.mdReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.
I have...
Summary by CodeRabbit