-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
refactor(x/slashing): remove extra get #22376
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on optimizing 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
|
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.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
x/slashing/keeper/infractions.go (1)
140-140
: LGTM! Efficient reuse of the validator instance.The change correctly eliminates a redundant validator fetch by reusing the already retrieved
val
variable, which improves performance while maintaining the same validation logic.Consider adding a debug log when skipping the slash due to the validator being jailed, similar to the "not found" case, to maintain consistent logging:
if val != nil && !val.IsJailed() { // Downtime confirmed: slash and jail the validator ... } else { + reason := "not found in store" + if val != nil && val.IsJailed() { + reason = "already jailed" + } k.Logger.Info( - "validator would have been slashed for downtime, but was either not found in store or already jailed", + "validator would have been slashed for downtime, but was " + reason, "validator", consStr, ) }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- x/slashing/keeper/infractions.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
x/slashing/keeper/infractions.go (1)
Pattern
**/*.go
: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
x/slashing/keeper/infractions.go
Outdated
return err | ||
} | ||
if validator != nil && !validator.IsJailed() { | ||
if val != nil && !val.IsJailed() { |
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.
hmmm do we need to check here, IsJailed is already checked above and if the val is nil then probably it already return an err when we get it
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.
this is true, this function could probably be cleaned up
Description
this pr removes an extra get in the slashing module that duplicates unmarshaling of a validator
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.md
Reviewers 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