Fix response for loan rpcs

[Kailai-Wang]

Context

This is because the fields in ErrorDetails are not propagated to PumpxRpcErrorData.

But the errors need to be cleaned up IMO - it's a bit overcomplicated due to nested structure.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
heima-aa-demo-app	Ready	Preview	Comment	Oct 29, 2025 0:46am

[claude]

Claude finished @Kailai-Wang's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

I've thoroughly reviewed the PR "Fix response for loan rpcs" and here's my comprehensive feedback:

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the changed file
• Understand the error handling structure and context
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage needs
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Review Summary

The PR correctly fixes the issue where ErrorDetails fields weren't being propagated to PumpxRpcErrorData. The changes are well-implemented and address the stated problem effectively.

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Correct Problem Resolution

• The fix properly propagates all ErrorDetails fields (field, expected, received, reason, suggestion) from DetailedError to PumpxRpcErrorData
• Maintains backward compatibility by using Option<String> with #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]

2. Consistent Error Structure

• Both from_api_response and From<DetailedError> implementations now handle the same error data fields consistently
• The error data structure is now complete and mirrors the ErrorDetails structure properly

3. Code Quality

• Clean, readable implementation that follows existing patterns
• Proper use of Rust idioms and Serde attributes
• No unnecessary allocations or performance overhead

🔍 Detailed Analysis

Code Quality: Excellent

• The implementation follows Rust best practices
• Consistent naming conventions and structure
• Proper error handling patterns maintained

Security: No Issues

• No security vulnerabilities introduced
• Error information exposure is controlled through the existing optional field pattern
• No sensitive data leakage concerns

Performance: Optimal

• Minimal overhead - only adds field assignments
• No new allocations beyond necessary string moves
• Serde skip attributes prevent unnecessary serialization

Bug Analysis: No Issues Found

• The fix correctly addresses the stated problem in tee-worker/omni-executor/rpc-server/src/methods/omni/common.rs:86-90
• All error detail fields are now properly mapped
• No logic errors or edge cases identified

📋 Minor Suggestions

1. Consider Adding Unit Tests
While the existing integration tests in files like request_loan_test.rs demonstrate error usage, consider adding specific unit tests for the error conversion:

#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
    use super::*;
    use crate::detailed_error::{DetailedError, ErrorDetails};

    #[test]
    fn test_detailed_error_to_pumpx_rpc_error_conversion() {
        let detailed_error = DetailedError {
            code: 400,
            message: "Validation failed".to_string(),
            details: ErrorDetails {
                field: Some("amount".to_string()),
                expected: Some("positive number".to_string()),
                received: Some("-5".to_string()),
                reason: Some("Amount cannot be negative".to_string()),
                suggestion: Some("Use a positive value".to_string()),
            },
        };

        let pumpx_error = PumpxRpcError::from(detailed_error);
        
        assert_eq!(pumpx_error.code, 400);
        assert_eq!(pumpx_error.message, "Validation failed");
        
        let data = pumpx_error.data.unwrap();
        assert_eq!(data.field, Some("amount".to_string()));
        assert_eq!(data.expected, Some("positive number".to_string()));
        assert_eq!(data.received, Some("-5".to_string()));
        assert_eq!(data.reason, Some("Amount cannot be negative".to_string()));
        assert_eq!(data.suggestion, Some("Use a positive value".to_string()));
        assert_eq!(data.backend_response, None);
    }
}

2. Error Structure Documentation
The PR description mentions that "errors need to be cleaned up IMO - it's a bit overcomplicated due to nested structure." While this fix is correct, consider documenting the error structure design decisions for future maintainers.

✅ Test Coverage Assessment

The existing test files show comprehensive error handling:

• request_loan_test.rs:58-94 demonstrates proper DetailedError creation with all fields
• Error scenarios are well covered in the loan-related operations
• The fix ensures that detailed error information will now be properly serialized in RPC responses

🎯 Recommendation

Approve and Merge - This is a solid fix that resolves the stated issue without introducing any problems. The implementation is clean, follows existing patterns, and maintains backward compatibility.

The changes correctly address the core issue where ErrorDetails fields weren't being propagated to the RPC error response structure, ensuring that clients now receive the full error context they need for proper error handling and user feedback.

---