Problem: authz module is risky #1274
Conversation
Solution: - it's already disabled in mempool in v1.0.x, now remove completely in v1.1.x.
yihuang
requested review from
mmsqe and
leejw51crypto
and removed request for
a team
WalkthroughThe unidiff snippets indicate the complete removal of the "authz" module from the codebase, signifying a significant alteration to the logic and functionality of the application, particularly in the area related to authorization. This involves the removal of related imports, module declarations, and initializations across various files, reflecting a substantial shift in how the application handles authorization. Changes
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? TipsChat with CodeRabbit Bot (
|
Signed-off-by: yihuang <[email protected]>
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (3)
- CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
- app/app.go (9 hunks)
- app/upgrades.go (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 11
app/upgrades.go (2)
12-12: The addition of the
authztypesimport is necessary for the removal of theauthzmodule's store. Ensure that this import is used elsewhere in the file as intended and that there are no references toauthzleft that would require this import.149-158: The addition of
authztypes.StoreKeyto theDeletedfield ofstoreUpgradesfor both the mainnet and testnet upgrade plans is consistent with the objective of removing theauthzmodule. Verify that the upgrade logic has been tested and that the deletion of theauthzstore does not affect other parts of the system unexpectedly.CHANGELOG.md (1)
- 6-6: The update to the
CHANGELOG.mdcorrectly reflects the significant change of removing theauthzmodule in pull request Problem: authz module is risky #1274.app/app.go (8)
248-253: The removal of the
authzmodule fromGenModuleBasicsaligns with the PR objective to remove theauthzmodule from the codebase. Ensure that dependent modules and functionalities are not affected by this removal.278-281: The removal of
authzrelated keys from theStoreKeysfunction is consistent with the PR objective. Ensure that there are no remaining references to these keys elsewhere in the codebase that could cause runtime errors.340-344: The removal of
authzrelated keepers from theAppstruct is consistent with the PR objective. Ensure that there are no remaining references to these keepers or methods that were specifically used by theauthzmodule.462-467: The removal of
authzrelated functionality from theAppstruct's initialization is consistent with the PR objective. Ensure that the initialization sequence of other modules is not disrupted by this change.697-702: The removal of the
authzmodule from theNewAppModulefunction calls is consistent with the PR objective. Confirm that the app module's functionality remains intact and that no other modules depend on theauthzmodule.728-733: The removal of the
authzmodule from theSetOrderBeginBlockersfunction calls is consistent with the PR objective. Ensure that the order of operations during the begin block is not negatively impacted by this change.750-755: The removal of the
authzmodule from theSetOrderEndBlockersfunction calls is consistent with the PR objective. Confirm that the order of operations during the end block remains correct and that no dependencies on theauthzmodule exist.783-788: The removal of the
authzmodule from theSetOrderInitGenesisfunction calls is consistent with the PR objective. Ensure that the initialization of the genesis state for other modules is not affected by this change.
Signed-off-by: yihuang <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1274 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 16.02% 35.77% +19.75%
===========================================
Files 80 116 +36
Lines 6184 10663 +4479
===========================================
+ Hits 991 3815 +2824
- Misses 5114 6471 +1357
- Partials 79 377 +298
|
Signed-off-by: yihuang <[email protected]>
|
seems get wrong Block.Header.AppHash in upgrade test |
yeah, maybe some inconsistency between memiavl and iavl handling deletion of store. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- store/rootmulti/store.go (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
store/rootmulti/store.go (1)
- 371-373: The addition of an else block to initialize
lastCommitInfoas an emptytypes.CommitInfostruct when the database version is 0 is a good safety measure. This ensures thatlastCommitInfois never left uninitialized, which could prevent potential nil pointer dereferences.
42f2597
Solution:
👮🏻👮🏻👮🏻 !!!! REFERENCE THE PROBLEM YOUR ARE SOLVING IN THE PR TITLE AND DESCRIBE YOUR SOLUTION HERE !!!! DO NOT FORGET !!!! 👮🏻👮🏻👮🏻
PR Checklist:
make)make test)go fmt)golangci-lint run)go list -json -m all | nancy sleuth)Thank you for your code, it's appreciated! :)
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Refactor
Documentation
CHANGELOG.mdto reflect significant changes in authorization logic.