feat: add tests #1448
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1405,12 +1405,12 @@ func (p *processor) restoreBackwardLETBridges(tx dbtypes.Txer, backwardLETs []*B | |||||||
| ` | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| for _, backwardLET := range backwardLETs { | ||||||||
| prev, err := aggkitcommon.SafeUint64(new(big.Int).Sub(backwardLET.PreviousDepositCount, big.NewInt(1))) | ||||||||
| if err != nil { | ||||||||
| return fmt.Errorf("invalid previous deposit count: %w", err) | ||||||||
| } | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| next, err := aggkitcommon.SafeUint64(new(big.Int).Sub(backwardLET.NewDepositCount, big.NewInt(1))) | ||||||||
| if err != nil { | ||||||||
| return fmt.Errorf("invalid new deposit count: %w", err) | ||||||||
| } | ||||||||
|
|
@@ -1590,7 +1590,8 @@ func (p *processor) ProcessBlock(ctx context.Context, block sync.Block) error { | |||||||
| return err | ||||||||
| } | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| adjustedCount := new(big.Int).Sub(event.BackwardLET.NewDepositCount, big.NewInt(1)) | ||||||||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Does the If that's the case, would it make more sense if we would delete all the nodes that has the index greater than or equal to
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. so basically what smart contract emits is deposit count which is 1 indexed (starts from 1 and not 0) |
||||||||
| newDepositCount, leafIndex, err := normalizeDepositCount(adjustedCount) | ||||||||
|
Comment on lines
+1593
to
+1594
There was a problem hiding this comment. The adjustment of NewDepositCount by subtracting 1 before calling normalizeDepositCount changes the interpretation of BackwardLET events. This adjustment will affect which bridges are archived and deleted, as it changes the threshold value passed to archiveAndDeleteBridgesAbove. Ensure this aligns with the contract's actual behavior and that the corresponding forward LET handling has been updated consistently.
Suggested change
|
||||||||
| if err != nil { | ||||||||
| return err | ||||||||
| } | ||||||||
|
|
@@ -1754,7 +1755,7 @@ func (p *processor) handleForwardLETEvent(tx dbtypes.Txer, event *ForwardLET, bl | |||||||
| return 0, fmt.Errorf("failed to decode new leaves in forward LET: %w", err) | ||||||||
| } | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| newDepositCount := uint32(event.PreviousDepositCount.Uint64()) | ||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. The change from
Suggested change
|
||||||||
| newBlockPos := event.BlockPos | ||||||||
| if blockPos != nil { | ||||||||
| newBlockPos = *blockPos | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The subtraction of 1 from both PreviousDepositCount and NewDepositCount in BackwardLET processing represents a significant semantic change. The adjustment is applied before converting to uint64 and storing in the database. This appears to change the interpretation of deposit counts from the contract events. Verify that this adjustment correctly aligns with the updated contract specification and that the query
deposit_count > $1 AND deposit_count <= $2in the restore logic still works correctly with the adjusted values.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain why we are decreasing the (previous and next) deposit counts by one? I fail to understand the logic.