fix: typo on cache_test eth_call

[d-roak]

Description

The method being called in cache_test.go for eth_call was eth_gasPrice. This PR fixes it

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This update involves a modification in a test case within the cache_test.go file. Specifically, the change is the alteration of the Method field value from "eth_gasPrice" to "eth_call" for testing an unsupported RPC method. This indicates a shift in the RPC method being tested for unsupported scenarios in the caching mechanism.

Changes

File	Change Summary
.../cache_test.go	Updated the Method field value from "eth_gasPrice" to "eth_call" in a test case for an unsupported RPC method.

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?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

---

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit-tests for this file.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository from git and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

[tynes]

Interesting that the test didn't fail because of this

[trianglesphere]

@tynes it is because we return nil, nil in the cache.

func (c *rpcCache) GetRPC(ctx context.Context, req *RPCReq) (*RPCRes, error) {
	handler := c.handlers[req.Method]
	if handler == nil {
		return nil, nil
	}

[tynes]

Do you think returning nil,nil is an antipattern? It should be nil,ErrNotFound. imo we should never return nil,nil. It enforces two possibilities over 3 which is easier to reason about as a dev

[trianglesphere]

Do you think returning nil,nil is an antipattern? It should be nil,ErrNotFound. imo we should never return nil,nil. It enforces two possibilities over 2 which is easier to reason about as a dev

Personally I think so. cc @felipe-op will this break assumptions around how this cache is used?

[felipe-op]

Do you think returning nil,nil is an antipattern? It should be nil,ErrNotFound. imo we should never return nil,nil. It enforces two possibilities over 2 which is easier to reason about as a dev

Personally I think so. cc @felipe-op will this break assumptions around how this cache is used?

The expected semantic here is return a nil error if the lookup was successful. There is no need to change the semantic.

The reason why the test didn't break is because those methods are expected to have the same behaviour, which is never cache the result. The test is checking this exactly same behaviour in a set of methods.