Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
OrderBookIsNotCrossed invariant #2210
OrderBookIsNotCrossed invariant #2210
Changes from 16 commits
e2544ff
cace409
7315125
6f2fe76
3ac55ed
16b6db4
faeecec
08af91f
78e2055
626bd07
83b1203
5ecb2af
2290445
bccd74b
fef0439
c0c09c0
6ee9d56
6cad472
1d1059c
814ec60
2be048e
9a7b3ae
72a269b
cfd2846
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
As far as I can tell, I don't think you are ever actually using these functions?
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.
rebased so now I can add it to the appropriate place in the fuzzing code, before and after:
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.
Why not just check the asset-pair for every offer that appears in
ltxd
, similar to what you did forALLOW_TRUST
but incorporating created offers as well? I think this would be simpler and more reliable than handling each operation type specifically.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 simplification is great, and at this point it may seem like I do not utilize operations at all now, which is true. However, I do not believe I should remove the operation inclusion code from the tests because future order book invariants, specifically the one I have locally, wip,
BestOffersTaken
, relies on the operation for certain parts of its check.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.
Nitpick: typically written like
pp.path.empty()
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.
assets
contains duplicates, which will be wasteful when checking crossed later. (I believe this is also possible forPATH_PAYMENT
)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.
As part of an above change, I loop through Offers and only grab unique asset pairs.
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.
These free functions should be marked
static
in order to get internal linkage.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 block (109:120) is a bit wasteful since you are repeating look ups you've already done (by my count, this takes 12 look ups when it can be done with 4). I would store the results as you get them, something like
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.
I think you forgot to fill in the rest of the code starting from
// ...
(I only gave you the first part of it). Should need to make some changes throughauto const& bids = ...
.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.
I don't really think this is an elegant approach. I had to convince myself that it's impossible for this condition to be satisfied if either
asks
orbids
is empty. I think a more readable approach would be something likeThere 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.
Ok makes sense. The above should read
lowestAsk <= highestBid
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.
Yes you're right, I missed equality in the last condition. Good catch.
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.
Nitpick: while perfectly valid code, I really dislike this pattern. It's strictly longer than
std::string r
and has a negative impact on readability.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.
Went with
xdr::xdr_to_string
as recommended below.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.
I think it would be better to use
xdr::xdr_to_string
instead of your customassetCodeToStr
lambda. One advantage, for example, is that it would include both theassetCode
and theissuer
.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 looks dangerous: taking a reference to a stack-allocated value from a different function