refactor(airdrop-token-vesting): remove unnecessary fields #129
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WalkthroughThe recent updates focus on optimizing the airdrop token vesting contract, enhancing its functionality and efficiency. Modifications include changes to function parameters, simplification of validation methods, and adjustments in handling vesting schedules. The removal of unnecessary variants and methods streamlines the code, while the addition of direct parameter handling and new methods improve the contract's clarity and performance. 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? 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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files
|
![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: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (5)
- contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/contract.rs (10 hunks)
- contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/errors.rs (1 hunks)
- contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/msg.rs (7 hunks)
- contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/state.rs (2 hunks)
- contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/testing.rs (16 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/errors.rs
Additional comments: 28
contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/state.rs (1)
- 37-37: The addition of the
cliff_amountfield to theVestingAccountstruct aligns with the PR objectives to adjust the vesting schedule logic. This field is crucial for calculating the vested amount when a cliff is involved.contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/msg.rs (4)
- 60-60: Changing the
cliff_amountfield inRewardUserRequestfrom an optional to a fixed type simplifies the data structure and aligns with the PR objectives of simplifying function parameters. This change ensures that every reward request must explicitly include a cliff amount, which could improve clarity in reward scheduling.- 64-75: The updated
validatemethod inRewardUserRequestnow checks for a zero vesting amount and ensures that the cliff amount does not exceed the vesting amount. These validations are crucial for maintaining the integrity of reward requests and preventing logical errors in vesting calculations. The simplification of this method, by removing checks for optional fields, enhances readability and maintainability.- 115-117: The adjustments to the
VestingScheduleenum, specifically the removal of theLinearVestingvariant and the simplification of theLinearVestingWithClifffields, streamline the vesting schedule representation. This change supports the PR's objective of simplifying the contract's structure and makes the vesting logic more straightforward.- 159-159: The simplified
validatemethod inVestingSchedulenow focuses on ensuring the validity of time ranges for theLinearVestingWithCliffvariant. This method is essential for preventing logical errors in vesting schedules by enforcing that the start time is before the end time and that the cliff time is a valid point within the vesting period. The removal of redundant checks and the focus on time validation contribute to the method's clarity and effectiveness.contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/contract.rs (5)
- 142-142: The change to have
reward_userstakevesting_scheduleby value instead of by mutable reference simplifies parameter handling and aligns with the PR's objective of simplifying function parameters. This approach also ensures that the vesting schedule is explicitly provided for each reward operation, enhancing clarity.- 163-163: The call to
vesting_schedule.validate(env.block.time)withinreward_usersis crucial for ensuring that the provided vesting schedule is valid at the time of rewarding users. This validation step helps prevent logical errors related to time constraints in vesting schedules.- 168-168: Validating each
RewardUserRequestwithin the loop inreward_usersensures that all reward requests meet the necessary criteria before proceeding with vesting account registration. This validation step is essential for maintaining the integrity of reward operations.- 207-214: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [210-226]
The
register_vesting_accountfunction now directly takesvesting_amountandcliff_amountas parameters, which simplifies the function signature and aligns with the PR's objective of simplifying function parameters. This change also ensures that the necessary information is explicitly provided when registering a vesting account, enhancing clarity and reducing the risk of errors.
- 272-272: Calculating the
vested_amountwithinderegister_vesting_accountto determine the amount that can be claimed or needs to be transferred is a critical operation. This calculation ensures that the contract accurately handles the distribution of vested tokens upon account deregistration, aligning with the contract's logic for handling vested amounts.contracts/airdrop-token-vesting/src/testing.rs (18)
- 249-249: The change from
Option<u128>tou128for thecliff_amountparameter in thecreate_msgfunction simplifies the handling of this value, aligning with the PR objectives to streamline the contract's code structure.- 256-256: Updating the
cliff_amountfield in theRewardUserRequeststruct to always be of typeUint128::new(cliff_amount)is consistent with the simplification of thecliff_amounthandling. This change ensures that thecliff_amountis always explicitly defined, enhancing the contract's readability and maintainability.- 267-267: The test case for unauthorized sender correctly simulates the scenario where an unauthorized address attempts to execute the
RewardUsersmessage. This is crucial for ensuring the contract's security by validating that only authorized users can perform certain actions.- 277-277: Testing for a zero vesting amount is important for ensuring that the contract correctly handles edge cases and prevents invalid operations. This test case aligns with the objective of streamlining the validation process for user rewards and vesting schedules.
- 287-287: The test case for cliff time being less than block time is essential for validating the contract's logic regarding time constraints in vesting schedules. This ensures that the vesting schedule logic is robust and less prone to errors, in line with the PR objectives.
- 300-300: Testing for the scenario where the end time is less than the start time is crucial for ensuring the integrity of the vesting schedule. This test case helps prevent logical errors in the vesting schedule definition, contributing to the contract's overall robustness.
- 314-314: The test case for the cliff amount being greater than the vesting amount is important for validating the contract's handling of invalid input values. This ensures that the contract's logic for managing vesting amounts and schedules is consistent and error-resistant.
- 331-331: Testing for the scenario where the deposit amount is higher than unallocated funds is crucial for ensuring the contract's financial integrity. This test case aligns with the objective of enhancing the contract's validation process for user rewards and vesting schedules.
- 342-342: The test case for a valid vesting amount is essential for verifying the contract's functionality under normal operating conditions. This ensures that the contract behaves as expected when processing valid vesting schedules and amounts.
- 379-384: Updating test cases to reflect the changes in the function calls and assertions, especially with the
cliff_amountparameter handling, is crucial for ensuring that the contract's functionality remains consistent and predictable. This aligns with the PR objectives to update test cases according to the structural changes made to the contract.- 441-441: Similar to the previous
create_msgfunction modification, changing thecliff_amountparameter from anOption<u128>to au128type in this context simplifies the handling and improves the clarity of the contract's logic.- 448-448: Consistently updating the
cliff_amountfield in theRewardUserRequeststruct across different test cases ensures that the contract's handling of this value is uniform, enhancing the code's readability and maintainability.- 460-460: The inclusion of a test case for a valid vesting amount in a different context (withdrawal scenario) is important for comprehensive testing of the contract's functionality. This ensures that the contract behaves as expected across various operations.
- 563-563: Testing for a zero vesting amount in the context of registering a vesting account with a native token is crucial for ensuring that the contract correctly handles edge cases and prevents invalid operations.
- 585-585: The test case for an excessive vesting amount is important for validating the contract's financial integrity and its ability to handle scenarios where the requested vesting amount exceeds available funds.
- 608-619: Testing for excessive vesting amounts across multiple rewards is crucial for ensuring that the contract can correctly handle scenarios involving multiple transactions. This test case contributes to the robustness of the contract's financial validation logic.
- 636-641: The inclusion of a test case for a valid vesting amount in the context of registering a vesting account with a native token is essential for verifying the contract's functionality under normal operating conditions.
- 723-727: The test case for claiming native tokens with a valid amount is crucial for ensuring that the contract correctly handles the claim process, aligning with the PR objectives to streamline the validation process for user rewards and vesting schedules.
Comment on lines
+43
to
+71
| pub fn vested_amount(&self, block_time: u64) -> StdResult<Uint128> { | ||
| match self.vesting_schedule { | ||
| VestingSchedule::LinearVestingWithCliff { | ||
| start_time: _start_time, | ||
| end_time, | ||
| cliff_time, | ||
| } => { | ||
| if block_time < cliff_time.u64() { | ||
| return Ok(Uint128::zero()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if block_time == cliff_time.u64() { | ||
| return Ok(self.cliff_amount); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if block_time >= end_time.u64() { | ||
| return Ok(self.vesting_amount); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| let remaining_token = | ||
| self.vesting_amount.checked_sub(self.cliff_amount)?; | ||
| let vested_token = remaining_token | ||
| .checked_mul(Uint128::from(block_time - cliff_time.u64()))? | ||
| .checked_div(Uint128::from(end_time - cliff_time))?; | ||
|
|
||
| Ok(vested_token + self.cliff_amount) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The vested_amount method implementation seems logically sound and aligns with the PR objectives of simplifying the vesting schedule logic. However, there are a few points to consider for improvement:
- The method assumes a single vesting schedule type (
LinearVestingWithCliff). If the contract plans to support multiple vesting types in the future, this method might need to be adjusted or extended. - The calculation logic within the
ifblocks is clear, but adding brief comments explaining each case (e.g., before the cliff, at the cliff, after the cliff but before the end, and after the end) could enhance readability and maintainability. - Error handling for arithmetic operations is done using
?, which is appropriate. However, consider adding explicit error messages for potential failures in these operations for easier debugging.
Overall, the method effectively calculates the vested amount based on the provided block time and the vesting schedule parameters.
Consider adding comments to explain the logic within each conditional block for better readability.
jgimeno
approved these changes
Mar 6, 2024
matthiasmatt
approved these changes
Mar 6, 2024
matthiasmatt
deleted the
refactor/airdrop-token-vesting/remove-redundant-fields
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
VestingSchedule::LinearVestingcliff_amountandvesting_amountfromVestingSchedulecliff_amountSummary by CodeRabbit