Skip to content

refactor: follow-ups for dash#6638 #6643

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 25, 2025
Merged

refactor: follow-ups for dash#6638 #6643

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 25, 2025

Conversation

knst
Copy link
Collaborator

@knst knst commented Apr 23, 2025

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Minor refactorings / improvements for dash#6638

What was done?

See commits

How Has This Been Tested?

Run unit / functional tests

Breaking Changes

N/A

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

@knst knst added this to the 23 milestone Apr 23, 2025
@knst knst mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2025
Merged
5 tasks
@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 23, 2025

Walkthrough

The changes involve updates to three source files. In src/evo/deterministicmns.h, the forward declaration of the CChainState class is removed, with no other modifications to the file. In src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp, explicit assertions ensuring the wallet lock is held within the ListReceived function and its internal lambda are removed, along with redundant address ownership checks inside the lambda. These adjustments streamline the function by relying on existing locking contracts and prior filtering logic. In src/wallet/scriptpubkeyman.cpp, a conditional statement in the LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::CheckDecryptionKey method is simplified by eliminating a redundant null check, resulting in a more concise but logically equivalent condition. No changes are made to the declarations of exported or public entities in any of the modified files.

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
🪧 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>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • 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 testing code 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 gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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 using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • 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/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot reviewed Apr 23, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/wallet/scriptpubkeyman.cpp (1)

222-224: Simplification of redundant null check appears correct.

The revised condition:

if (!keyPass && !accept_no_keys && (m_hd_chain.IsNull() || !m_hd_chain.IsCrypted())) {
    return false;
}

is logically equivalent to the previous, more verbose form, and maintains the same behavior.

Consider adding a unit test to cover the case where !keyPass && !accept_no_keys with an HD chain that is null or unencrypted, to guard against regressions in this branch.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between db5d000 and 249f2b3.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • src/evo/deterministicmns.h (0 hunks)
  • src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp (0 hunks)
  • src/wallet/scriptpubkeyman.cpp (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
  • src/evo/deterministicmns.h
  • src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (10)
  • GitHub Check: mac-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: linux64_tsan-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: linux64_multiprocess-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: linux64_sqlite-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: linux64_ubsan-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: linux64-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: linux64_fuzz-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: arm-linux-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: win64-build / Build source
  • GitHub Check: linux64_nowallet-build / Build source

UdjinM6
UdjinM6 approved these changes Apr 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utACK 249f2b3

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit c820921 into dashpay:develop Apr 25, 2025
54 of 55 checks passed
kwvg
kwvg reviewed Apr 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@kwvg kwvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

post-merge utACK 249f2b3

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@kwvg kwvg kwvg left review comments

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] left review comments

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 UdjinM6 approved these changes

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta Awaiting requested review from PastaPastaPasta

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
23
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@knst @UdjinM6 @kwvg @PastaPastaPasta