Skip to content
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

Adding transaction_call endpoint #832

Open
wants to merge 19 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

otherview
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR adds a new endpoint that allows to simulate and estimate based on transactions instead of clauses.
The added value is to bring api communication to the transaction level. This allows for gotchas like, chaintag, expiration, nonce, etc to be more visible and allows executing transactions in a given block revision

Summary of the endpoint:

URL :         POST /transactions/call?revision=best
Payload :   transaction.Transaction (existing type)
Response:   transaction.CallReceipt (transaction.Receipt minus Block info)
type CallReceipt struct {
	GasUsed  uint64                `json:"gasUsed"`
	GasPayer thor.Address          `json:"gasPayer"`
	Paid     *math.HexOrDecimal256 `json:"paid"`
	Reward   *math.HexOrDecimal256 `json:"reward"`
	Reverted bool                  `json:"reverted"`
	TxID     thor.Bytes32          `json:"txID"`
	TxOrigin thor.Address          `json:"txOrigin"`
	Outputs  []*Output             `json:"outputs"`
	VmError  string                `json:"vmError"`
}

Goal: Execute a transaction at the head of a specified block. Retrieve the total gas cost at the transaction level.
(Note: Can be expanded to execute in a block at a given tx position.)

Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

How Has This Been Tested?

  • Tests

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • New and existing E2E tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
  • I have not added any vulnerable dependencies to my code

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Aug 28, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 32.68698% with 243 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.95%. Comparing base (f49e4b0) to head (1971e10).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
runtime/runtime.go 0.00% 107 Missing ⚠️
api/transactions/types.go 60.41% 34 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
runtime/resolved_tx.go 0.00% 28 Missing ⚠️
api/transactions/transactions.go 65.21% 17 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
api/metrics.go 0.00% 22 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
tx/block_ref.go 0.00% 13 Missing ⚠️
thorclient/httpclient/client.go 57.14% 4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
thorclient/thorclient.go 70.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
api/api.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #832      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   61.52%   60.95%   -0.57%     
==========================================
  Files         218      218              
  Lines       22756    23037     +281     
==========================================
+ Hits        14001    14043      +42     
- Misses       7624     7858     +234     
- Partials     1131     1136       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link

This pull request has been marked as stale due to inactivity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale PR/ Issue has been marked as stale label Oct 28, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale PR/ Issue has been marked as stale label Nov 1, 2024
@MakisChristou MakisChristou force-pushed the pedro/transactions_call branch from 6e7853e to da734f1 Compare December 5, 2024 08:01
}
}

return c.ResponseWriter.Write(b)

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

Reflected cross-site scripting Medium

Cross-site scripting vulnerability due to
user-provided value
.
Cross-site scripting vulnerability due to
user-provided value
.
@MakisChristou MakisChristou marked this pull request as ready for review December 17, 2024 11:44
@MakisChristou MakisChristou requested a review from a team as a code owner December 17, 2024 11:44
@@ -300,6 +301,25 @@ func TestClient_GetTransaction(t *testing.T) {
assert.Equal(t, expectedTx, tx)
}

func TestClient_CallTransaction(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we also add negative tests ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess we can but those are mock tests afaik. So not sure what the benefit of returning a hardcoded "error" response will be and checking if its what we expect.

Copy link
Member Author

@otherview otherview left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Very minor bits, but lgtm - should there be a couple of e2e to go with this as well ?
I can't approve, but perhaps @libotony can have a final review and approve ?

@@ -191,6 +191,177 @@ paths:
type: string
example: 'Invalid transaction ID'

/transactions/call:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I haven't tried but when this yml gets generated, does it contain a working example ? (like the other endpoints)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think so, but do you mean examples for values? like here
or code/usage example?


// Record VM error if present
if ctxWriter.VMError != "" {
metricTxCallVMErrors().AddWithLabel(1, map[string]string{
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What happens if there are a high number of different errors here ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From the code I read, there is always at most only 1 possible vmerror per transaction, that doesn't depend on the amount of clauses in a transaction. Was that the question?

if rt != nil && rt.GetName() != "" {
enabled = true
name = rt.GetName()
if name == "transactions_call_tx" {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the goal of this particular case ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess to separate errors that happened specifically on that endpoint, the name for it is set here. Not sure if that metric is needed, since it's the errors that happened on transactions, that are not mined

@@ -74,6 +79,16 @@ func TestTransaction(t *testing.T) {
} {
t.Run(name, tt)
}

// Call transaction
for name, tt := range map[string]func(*testing.T){
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can another test be added here that does the same checks, or a summarized version, of the checks that the mempool does to verify tx integrity ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah! These seem to be covered already yeah ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I am pretty sure this is the one

@libotony
Copy link
Member

Discussed offline, @otherview pointed that including runtime features is potentially providing values for devs, I would like to have a further investigation into the purpose of this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants