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

types: update coin regex #7027

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Aug 14, 2020
Merged

types: update coin regex #7027

merged 19 commits into from
Aug 14, 2020

Conversation

fedekunze
Copy link
Collaborator

@fedekunze fedekunze commented Aug 12, 2020

Description

Split coin changes from #6871 for ease of review
closes #6716


Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

  • Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
  • Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
  • Code follows the module structure standards.
  • Wrote unit and integration tests
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
  • Added relevant godoc comments.
  • Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
  • Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #7027 into master will increase coverage by 0.97%.
The diff coverage is 91.78%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7027      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   60.99%   61.96%   +0.97%     
==========================================
  Files         380      520     +140     
  Lines       24753    32022    +7269     
==========================================
+ Hits        15097    19843    +4746     
- Misses       8467    10551    +2084     
- Partials     1189     1628     +439     

types/coin.go Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@ethanfrey ethanfrey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It needs to be clear if atom, ATOM, and Atom are the same or different tokens.
And then make that stick in all code - subtracting, adding, ordering. Not just for the dup checks.

I am find with either decision (those 3 denoms are same or different), but it should be consistent

types/coin.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
{"MineraL", NewInt(1)},
{"TREE", NewInt(1)},
{"gAs", NewInt(1)},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess this test enforces the ordering by denom as published.

I just think if you normalize cases one place, they should be normalized everywhere.

Also, what if we have bal := Coins{{"atom", NewInt(10)}} and then bal.Sub(Coins{{"ATOM", NewInt(3)}}). What is the expected behavior?

Either "atom" == "ATOM" everywhere or nowhere - if they are considered dups, they should be treated the same by all math functions.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought "atom" != "ATOM" everywhere? Is this not correct @fedekunze ?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes, I removed it now

assert.False(t, mixedCase1.IsValid(), "Coins denoms contain upper case characters")
assert.False(t, mixedCase2.IsValid(), "First Coins denoms contain upper case characters")
assert.False(t, mixedCase3.IsValid(), "Single denom in Coins contains upper case characters")
assert.True(t, goodCaps.IsValid(), "Coins all caps are valid")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: usually this is some sort of table test, no?

Personally, I like the named table test:

cases := map[string]struct { 
  someTestData string
}{
  "all upper case": { "FOO" },
  "mixed case": {"fOO"},
}

for name, tc := range cases {
  t.Run(name, func(t *testing.T) {
    // whatever you want to test
    assert.True(IsValid(tc.someTestData)
  }
}

They are all run separately and each failure has the name from the upper test case map.

types/coin.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Aaron Craelius <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@AdityaSripal AdityaSripal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A little confused as to whether the case is ignored or not in denominations

types/coin.go Show resolved Hide resolved
types/coin.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
{"MineraL", NewInt(1)},
{"TREE", NewInt(1)},
{"gAs", NewInt(1)},
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought "atom" != "ATOM" everywhere? Is this not correct @fedekunze ?

types/dec_coin.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
assert.False(t, mixedCase3.IsValid(), "Single denom in Coins contains upper case characters")
assert.True(t, goodCaps.IsValid(), "Coins all caps are valid")
assert.True(t, unicodeLinearBAndRoman.IsValid(), "Unicode characters")
assert.False(t, unicodeEmoji.IsValid(), "Unicode emoji")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

😭

@okwme
Copy link
Contributor

okwme commented Aug 13, 2020

This looks good to me but I'm still a little confused about how customization would fare in an IBC context. For example I would go into main.go of my application and overwrite the Coin.Validate method to use custom regex that allows emoji in the denom. If I were to transfer one of these Coins to the Hub via IBC, would it cause an error on the Hub side?

@colin-axner
Copy link
Contributor

colin-axner commented Aug 13, 2020

This looks good to me but I'm still a little confused about how customization would fare in an IBC context. For example I would go into main.go of my application and overwrite the Coin.Validate method to use custom regex that allows emoji in the denom. If I were to transfer one of these Coins to the Hub via IBC, would it cause an error on the Hub side?

no, ADR 1 specifically considers this issue. The transfer denom is internally represented as ibc/<hash>

where

<hash> = Sha256Hash( {portIDN}/{channelIDN/.../.../{portID0}/{channelID0}/{baseDenom} )

Since the baseDenom is included in the hash the SDK does not care what it is. By updating the validation in this pr, any zone or hub that uses the SDK will be compatible with the SDK's ibc-transfer module. Furthermore, any zone or hub could mint denominations in any format except empty strings and transfer them to the cosmos hub where internally the are represented by the hash.

This mapping is only internally represented on the SDK. Zones or Hubs implementing different versions of ibc-transfer could internally represent the denomination in any way as long as they can send and recv packets properly and with the correct info required by the ICS20 specification.

If a zone or hub where to enforce stricter denomination requirements than the default in the SDK, if they did not support:

  • lower/upper case characters
  • integers
  • /
  • length of ibc/<hash>

then it would not be compatible with the ibc-transfer module and would return an error. These are pretty easy requirements to fulfill though

Copy link
Contributor

@cwgoes cwgoes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agreed that the tests should be converted to table-form.

Regarding unicode characters, I think we need to be a little careful - are there any two characters which look very similar / identical but are actually represented differently (i.e., are unequal)? This can be an attack vector (where some malicious agent purposefully creates a denom that looks almost exactly like a real one - e.g. atom - but is actually unequal).

Copy link
Contributor

@colin-axner colin-axner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall LGTM. I think we should take the time to document some key design decisions/rational while everyone is viewing these changes. coin.go has always been a poorly documented mystery to me without explanations for important code decisions. Sounds to me like we should open an issue for an ADR for coin.go and DecCoins

types/coin.go Show resolved Hide resolved
types/coin.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
types/coin.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
types/coin.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
types/coin_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
return err
}

if amount.IsNegative() {
return fmt.Errorf("negative coin amount: %v", amount)
if coin.Amount.IsNegative() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we document the rational to why a single coin of ZeroInt is valid but a set of coins with a coin of ZeroInt is invalid? Seems counter-intuitive to me and if we support this it, the reason should be well documented. I'd be in favor of only considering positive amount Coins valid

types/dec_coin.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
types/dec_coin_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@fedekunze
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks for your reviews. Regarding the attack vectors and Unicode, I've decided to undo the changes that add Unicode letters support until these changes are documented in an ADR as @colin-axner suggested. This PR was only meant for adding the coin changes from the already approved ADR001, so I guess it makes sense to scope the PR changes to that only.

@fedekunze fedekunze mentioned this pull request Aug 13, 2020
4 tasks
@fedekunze
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I addressed all the requested changes. I also opened issues for out of scope discussions about the Coins and tests #7046 #7031

Copy link
Contributor

@colin-axner colin-axner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK

Copy link
Member

@AdityaSripal AdityaSripal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can there be tests confirming that adding atom + ATOM yield 2 coins and not 1 or something similar?

// Denominations can be 3 ~ 64 characters long.
reDnmString = `[a-z][a-z0-9/]{2,63}`
// Denominations can be 3 ~ 128 characters long and support letters, followed by either
// a letter, a number or a separator ('/').
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note: There's the potential for confusing UI here.

Suppose I create a denom atom10, the following Coins string representation is ambigious to an end user

5atom10,300btc

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

unfortunately, there's no workaround for this. I added a test case and documented the expected format on the ParseCoin(s) func

@fedekunze fedekunze added the A:automerge Automatically merge PR once all prerequisites pass. label Aug 14, 2020
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 1b08e10 into master Aug 14, 2020
@mergify mergify bot deleted the update-coin-regex branch August 14, 2020 09:09
RavenXce pushed a commit to Switcheo/cosmos-sdk that referenced this pull request Oct 30, 2020
* types: update coin regex

* more tests

* fix test case

* increase coverage

* changelog

* fix tests

* support unicode letters and numbers

* remove ToUpper

* Update types/coin.go

Co-authored-by: Aaron Craelius <[email protected]>

* Validate function

* fix ICS20 test

* table tests and revert unicodes

* add test case

* add test cases and comment

Co-authored-by: Aaron Craelius <[email protected]>
@ig-shaun ig-shaun mentioned this pull request Jun 13, 2021
9 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A:automerge Automatically merge PR once all prerequisites pass. C:Types
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Duplicate coins allowed in ParseCoins
8 participants