add new revert enum as a status #61
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new enumerated value Changes
🪧 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
proto/v1/asset.proto (1)
21-21: Maintain consistency in enum documentation style.The addition is logically sound, but let's maintain consistency with other enum value comments:
- Add a period at the end
- Use "on-chain" instead of "onchain" to match line 6
- PROCESSING_STATUS_ON_CHAIN_REVERT = 8; // Intent is onchain but reverted + PROCESSING_STATUS_ON_CHAIN_REVERT = 8; // Intent is on-chain but reverted.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
gen/go/proto/v1/asset.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go,!**/gen/**gen/ts/proto/v1/asset_pb.d.tsis excluded by!**/gen/**gen/ts/proto/v1/asset_pb.tsis excluded by!**/gen/**
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
proto/v1/asset.proto(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
proto/v1/asset.proto (1)
21-21: Verify handling of the new status in existing code.The addition of a new ProcessingStatus enum value may require updates in code that handles these statuses, particularly in:
- Switch statements
- Status transition logic
- UI status displays
- API response handling
Let's verify the impact:
✅ Verification successful
The new ProcessingStatus enum value can be safely added.
The codebase uses a flexible implementation that automatically handles new status values through:
- Generated protobuf code for enum mapping
- Generic JSON marshaling/unmarshaling
- Simple required-field validation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for ProcessingStatus usage in the codebase echo "Searching for ProcessingStatus usage..." rg -t go "ProcessingStatus" -A 5 # Look for switch statements or if-else chains handling ProcessingStatus echo "Checking for switch statements..." ast-grep --pattern 'switch $expr { $$$ }'Length of output: 12249
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any validation or constraints related to ProcessingStatus echo "Searching for validation logic..." rg -t go "validate.*Status|Status.*valid" -A 5 # Search for any files that might contain status transition logic echo "Searching for potential status transition logic..." rg -t go "Status.*transition|transition.*Status|UpdateStatus|SetStatus" -A 5Length of output: 1943
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #61 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 44.65% 44.65%
=======================================
Files 6 6
Lines 1928 1928
=======================================
Hits 861 861
Misses 996 996
Partials 71 71
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
Summary by CodeRabbit