feat: Implement HbarLimitService#addExpense

[victor-yanev]

Description

This PR implements the addExpense method in the HbarLimitService class and adds corresponding unit tests. The changes include:

• Implementing the addExpense method to handle expense addition for ETH addresses.
• Adding unit tests for the addExpense method to ensure correct functionality.
• Adding unit tests for other methods in HbarLimitService to improve test coverage.

Changes

1. Implementation of addExpense Method:

   • Added logic to create a basic spending plan if none exists for the provided ETH or IP address.
   • Updated the remaining budget and spending history after adding an expense.
   • Added error handling for cases where neither ETH nor IP address is provided.

2. Unit Tests:

   • Added tests for the addExpense method to cover various scenarios, including:
     • Adding an expense when both ETH and IP addresses are provided.
     • Adding an expense when only ETH address is provided.
     • Handling errors when adding an expense fails.
   • Added tests for other methods in HbarLimitService to ensure comprehensive test coverage.

Related Issues

Fixes #2901

Notes for Reviewer

• Ensure to implement the remaining TODOs related to IP address handling in future PRs.
• Review the added unit tests to confirm they cover all edge cases and scenarios.

[github-actions]

Tests

       3 files     263 suites   20s ⏱️
1 232 tests 1 231 ✔️ 1 💤 0 ❌
1 244 runs  1 243 ✔️ 1 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit af07187.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Acceptance Tests

  21 files  304 suites   32m 24s ⏱️
597 tests 576 ✔️ 4 💤 17 ❌
979 runs  955 ✔️ 6 💤 18 ❌

Results for commit af07187.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[ebadiere]

A couple of nits, but I have a more general question.

I assume based on the description of issue #2896 that the plan will be to simply swap out the old HBar Rate Limiter with the new HBar Rate Limiter in the sdkClient.ts. If that is the case what happens if the Tier 3 general users are limited to 10K HBar per day, and a given partner is limited to 20K per day, and the general users use up all of the 10K budget before the partner has used up all of their allocated 20K. Is the partner rate limited as well, even though the partner may have only used up 12K Hbar that day?

Should we have a test for this?

[victor-yanev]

A couple of nits, but I have a more general question.

I assume based on the description of issue #2896 that the plan will be to simply swap out the old HBar Rate Limiter with the new HBar Rate Limiter in the sdkClient.ts. If that is the case what happens if the Tier 3 general users are limited to 10K HBar per day, and a given partner is limited to 20K per day, and the general users use up all of the 10K budget before the partner has used up all of their allocated 20K. Is the partner rate limited as well, even though the partner may have only used up 12K Hbar that day?

Should we have a test for this?

I have also been thinking about this, but I couldn't come up with something else than eliminating the total daily limit and only keeping the tiered limits per user/partner, let's discuss it on the parking lot today.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
4 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[github-actions]

🚨 Memory Leak Detected 🚨

A potential memory leak has been detected in the test titled should execute "eth_chainId". This may impact the application's performance and stability.

Details

📊 Memory Leak Detection Report 📊

GC Type: Scavenge
Cost: 4,112.56 ms

Heap Statistics (before vs after executing the test):

• Total Heap Size: increased with 2.71 MB
• Total Heap Size Executable: no changes
• Total Physical Size: increased with 2.71 MB
• Total Available Size: increased with 12.62 MB
• Total Global Handles Size: no changes
• Used Global Handles Size: decreased with 352.00 bytes
• Used Heap Size: decreased with 12.00 MB
• Heap Size Limit: no changes
• Malloced Memory: no changes
• External Memory: no changes
• Peak Malloced Memory: no changes

Heap Space Statistics (before vs after executing the test):

• Old Space:

  • Space Size: increased with 2.88 MB
  • Space Used Size: increased with 2.10 MB
  • Space Available Size: increased with 732.09 KB
  • Physical Space Size: increased with 2.88 MB

• Large Object Space:

  • Space Size: increased with 507.90 KB
  • Space Used Size: increased with 496.30 KB
  • Space Available Size: no changes
  • Physical Space Size: increased with 507.90 KB

Recommendations

Please investigate the memory allocations in this test, focusing on objects that are not being properly deallocated.

[Ivo-Yankov]

LGTM

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.71%. Comparing base (b03ed7a) to head (af07187).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2902      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.48%   83.71%   +0.22%     
==========================================
  Files          55       55              
  Lines        3676     3715      +39     
  Branches      765      770       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         3069     3110      +41     
+ Misses        367      365       -2     
  Partials      240      240              

Flag	Coverage Δ
relay	83.63% <100.00%> (+0.28%)	⬆️
server	83.05% <ø> (ø)
ws-server	97.87% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...s/relay/src/lib/services/hbarLimitService/index.ts	92.59% <100.00%> (+11.64%)	⬆️