x/crosschain/types/status.go (1)

Line range hint 7-10: Add documentation and enhance status message.

Consider adding documentation to clarify the purpose and usage of this method. Additionally, the status message could be more informative by including relevant context.

+// AbortRefunded marks the transaction as aborted with a refund processed.
+// This should be called when [specify conditions for calling this method].
 func (m *Status) AbortRefunded() {
 	m.IsAbortRefunded = true
-	m.StatusMessage = "CCTX aborted and Refunded"
+	m.StatusMessage = "Cross-chain transaction aborted and funds refunded to sender"
 }

zetaclient/chains/evm/observer/v2_inbound_tracker.go (1)

Line range hint 19-93: Consider enhancing error handling with typed errors

Given the complexity of processing different types of events (deposit, deposit-and-call, call), consider introducing typed errors for better error handling and debugging:

type InboundTrackerError struct {
    Type    string // "deposit", "deposit-and-call", "call"
    TxHash  string
    Reason  string
}

func (e *InboundTrackerError) Error() string {
    return fmt.Sprintf("failed to process %s event for tx %s: %s", e.Type, e.TxHash, e.Reason)
}

This would provide more context about which event processing failed and why, improving debuggability.

e2e/runner/v2_setup_zeta.go (1)

68-73: Document the purpose of the boolean parameter

The hardcoded true parameter lacks context. Consider adding a comment explaining its purpose or using a named constant to improve code readability.

+// isZetaChain parameter set to true as this is deploying on the ZETA chain
 testDAppV2Addr, txTestDAppV2, _, err := testdappv2.DeployTestDAppV2(
   r.ZEVMAuth,
   r.ZEVMClient,
   true,
   r.GatewayEVMAddr,
 )

e2e/e2etests/test_inbound_trackers.go (2)

Line range hint 13-16: Consider improving test setup documentation.

The comment about disabling inbound observation is crucial but references a specific line number that may become outdated. Consider replacing the line reference with a more maintainable approach.

- // IMPORTANT: the test requires inbound observation to be disabled, the following line should be uncommented:
- // https://github.com/zeta-chain/node/blob/9dcb42729653e033f5ba60a77dc37e5e19b092ad/zetaclient/chains/evm/observer/inbound.go#L210
+ // IMPORTANT: This test requires inbound observation to be disabled in zetaclient/chains/evm/observer/inbound.go
+ // Search for the line containing "disable inbound observation for e2e tests" and uncomment it.

---

88-91: Consider encapsulating value management in a helper function.

The pattern of setting and resetting the transaction value appears multiple times. Consider extracting this into a helper function for better maintainability.

+func withValue(r *runner.E2ERunner, value *big.Int, fn func() error) error {
+    previousValue := r.EVMAuth.Value
+    r.EVMAuth.Value = value
+    defer func() { r.EVMAuth.Value = previousValue }()
+    return fn()
+}

Usage example:

err := withValue(r, amount, func() error {
    tx, err := r.TestDAppV2EVM.GatewayDeposit(r.EVMAuth, r.EVMAddress())
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    addTrackerAndWaitForCCTX(coin.CoinType_Gas, tx.Hash().Hex())
    return nil
})
require.NoError(r, err)

Also applies to: 106-107

x/fungible/keeper/v2_deposits_test.go (1)

Line range hint 109-251: Consider enhancing test coverage and structure.

While the current test cases are comprehensive for happy paths, consider these improvements:

1. Add error scenarios:

   • Invalid gateway address
   • Failed contract calls
   • Insufficient balance cases

2. Consider refactoring to table-driven tests for better maintainability.

Example refactor:

func TestKeeper_ProcessV2Deposit(t *testing.T) {
    tests := []struct {
        name          string
        setupFn       func(t *testing.T) (k *Keeper, ctx sdk.Context, ...)
        input         ProcessV2DepositInput
        expectErr     bool
        assertionFn   func(t *testing.T, result ProcessV2DepositResult)
    }{
        {
            name: "should process no-call deposit",
            // ... test case details
        },
        // ... more test cases
    }

    for _, tt := range tests {
        t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
            // ... test implementation
        })
    }
}

e2e/runner/balances.go (1)

101-101: LGTM! Consider enhancing error handling consistency.

The addition of the r.SolanaClient != nil check is a good defensive programming practice that prevents potential nil pointer dereferences.

Consider wrapping the Solana-specific error messages for consistency with the rest of the codebase:

-			return AccountBalances{}, err
+			return AccountBalances{}, errors.Wrap(err, "failed to get Solana balance")

-			return AccountBalances{}, err
+			return AccountBalances{}, errors.Wrap(err, "failed to get SPL token balance")

x/crosschain/keeper/cctx_orchestrator_validate_outbound.go (2)

243-243: Consider maintaining revert messages for debugging

The removal of the revert message might make debugging more challenging in production environments. Consider maintaining a meaningful revert message or adding debug logs to help trace issues.

-		cctx.SetReverted("", "")
+		cctx.SetReverted("", "outbound transaction reverted")

---

Line range hint 1-424: Well-structured error handling and documentation

The error handling patterns and function documentation are comprehensive. However, there's a TODO comment referencing issue #2627 about consolidating logic. Consider creating a follow-up task to address this technical debt.

pkg/contracts/testdappv2/TestDAppV2.sol (3)

4-10: Add documentation to RevertOptions struct fields

To enhance code readability and maintainability, consider adding NatSpec comments to each field within the RevertOptions struct. This will provide clarity on the purpose and usage of each parameter.

Apply this diff to include documentation:

 struct RevertOptions {
+    /// @notice Address to receive revert callbacks
     address revertAddress;
+    /// @notice Flag indicating whether to call on revert
     bool callOnRevert;
+    /// @notice Address to abort the transaction
     address abortAddress;
+    /// @notice Message to include upon revert
     bytes revertMessage;
+    /// @notice Gas limit allocated for the on-revert call
     uint256 onRevertGasLimit;
 }

---

12-22: Include NatSpec comments for IGatewayEVM interface methods

Adding documentation to the interface methods will improve comprehension for developers implementing or interacting with the IGatewayEVM. This practice promotes better understanding of the expected behaviors and parameters.

Apply this diff to enhance the interface:

 interface IGatewayEVM {
+    /// @notice Deposits assets to a receiver address with revert options
     function deposit(address receiver, RevertOptions calldata revertOptions) external payable;
+    /// @notice Deposits assets and calls a function on the receiver with provided payload and revert options
     function depositAndCall(
         address receiver,
         bytes calldata payload,
         RevertOptions calldata revertOptions
     )
     external
     payable;
+    /// @notice Calls a function on the receiver with provided payload and revert options
     function call(address receiver, bytes calldata payload, RevertOptions calldata revertOptions) external;
 }

---

38-39: Ensure consistent ordering of state variable declarations

For improved code readability, consider grouping related state variables together. Place the gateway address declaration adjacent to isZetaChain to maintain logical grouping of immutable public variables.

Apply this diff to reorder the declarations:

 contract TestDAppV2 {
     // used to simulate gas consumption
     uint256[] private storageArray;

     string public constant NO_MESSAGE_CALL = "called with no message";

     // define if the chain is ZetaChain
     bool immutable public isZetaChain;
+    // address of the gateway
+    address immutable public gateway;

-    // address of the gateway
-    address immutable public gateway;

zetaclient/chains/evm/observer/inbound.go (2)

148-152: Elevate log level for critical error scenarios

The error logged when failing to get the gateway contract is at the Debug level. This might obscure critical issues during processing. Consider logging this error at a higher level, such as Warn or Error, to ensure it receives appropriate attention in production environments.

🧰 Tools

🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 148-148: zetaclient/chains/evm/observer/inbound.go#L148
Added line #L148 was not covered by tests

---

165-178: Enhance test coverage for new inbound processing logic

The newly implemented code for processing v1 inbound trackers lacks unit tests, as indicated by static analysis tools. To ensure robustness and prevent regressions, consider adding unit tests for each coin type handled in the switch statement.

As per previous learnings, test coverage for ObserveInbound functions is planned to be improved in future refactors. Would you like assistance in creating unit tests for these code paths or opening a GitHub issue to track this task?

🧰 Tools

🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 165-178: zetaclient/chains/evm/observer/inbound.go#L165-L178
Added lines #L165 - L178 were not covered by tests

pkg/contracts/testdappv2/TestDAppV2.go (1)

Line range hint 67-76: Ensure documentation for the new gateway_ parameter

The DeployTestDAppV2 function now includes an additional parameter gateway_ common.Address. Please add documentation or comments explaining the purpose and usage of this parameter to enhance code readability and maintainability.

🧰 Tools

🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 67-67: pkg/contracts/testdappv2/TestDAppV2.go#L67
Added line #L67 was not covered by tests

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

Learnt from: fbac
PR: zeta-chain/node#2952
File: x/crosschain/types/status.go:0-0
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T13:20:12.658Z
Learning: In the `UpdateStatusMessage` method, it's acceptable to update `m.StatusMessage` before `m.Status`.

Learnt from: ws4charlie
PR: zeta-chain/node#2899
File: zetaclient/chains/bitcoin/observer/inbound.go:131-132
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T13:20:12.658Z
Learning: ObserveInbound coverage will be improved in future refactor.

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify contract interface changes and test coverage

# Check TestDAppV2 contract interface changes
ast-grep --pattern 'func DeployTestDAppV2($_,$_,$_,$_)' 

# Check usage of deployment functions in tests
rg -A 5 'deployZEVMTestDApp|deployEVMTestDApp'

#!/bin/bash
# Search for all calls to ProcessInboundTrackerV2 to ensure they're updated
ast-grep --pattern 'ProcessInboundTrackerV2($$$)'

#!/bin/bash
# Search for the function definition to get its full name and context
rg -l "ProcessInboundTrackerV2" --type go

# Then search for any calls to this function
rg "ProcessInboundTrackerV2" --type go -A 2 -B 2

#!/bin/bash
# Search for other test files that might need similar updates
rg -t go "DeployTestDAppV2.*\(" --no-filename -A 5

#!/bin/bash
# Check the TestDAppV2 contract implementation for gateway usage
ast-grep --pattern 'contract TestDAppV2 {
  $$$
  gateway $$$
  $$$
}'

# Search for gateway address references in test files
rg -t go "GatewayZEVMAddr|GatewayEVMAddr" -B 2 -A 2

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that TestDAppV2 properly initializes the gateway address
# and that this address is used in the contract's logic for processing inbound trackers.

# Search for gateway address usage in TestDAppV2 contract
ast-grep --pattern 'contract TestDAppV2 {
  $$$
  address $_ = $_gatewayAddr;
  $$$
}'

# Search for gateway address validation in constructor or initializer
ast-grep --pattern 'constructor($_) {
  $$$
  require($_gatewayAddr != address(0), $_);
  $$$
}'

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the TestDAppV2 contract implementation
# First, locate the contract file
fd -e sol "TestDAppV2"

# Then examine its content if found
fd -e sol "TestDAppV2" -x cat {}

# Also search for gateway address references in Solidity files
rg -t sol "gateway" -A 2 -B 2

#!/bin/bash
# Search for gateway address usage patterns in production code
rg -A 3 "DeployContract.*testdappv2.TestDAppV2MetaData" --type go --glob '!**/*_test.go'

#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check how DeployContract is used in test files
rg -A 3 "DeployContract.*testdappv2" --type go

# Check the implementation of DeployContract
ast-grep --pattern 'func $$$DeployContract$$$'

# Look for gateway address handling in production code
rg -A 3 "gateway.*[Aa]ddress" --type go --glob '!**/*_test.go'

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the integration of gateway functions in test files
# Expected: Find test cases covering these new gateway functions

# Search for test cases using these functions
rg -A 5 'gatewayCall|gatewayDeposit|gatewayDepositAndCall' --type go

#!/bin/bash
# Search for the gateway function implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'function gatewayCall(address dst, bytes payload) {
  $$$
}'

# Also check for any potential security-related patterns
rg -A 5 'require\(.*gateway.*\)' --type solidity

#!/bin/bash
# Search for the contract files and gateway implementations
fd -e sol . | xargs cat

# Also check for any test files referencing these gateway functions
rg -A 5 "gateway.*Call.*\(" --type go

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the bytecode integrity by checking its length and structure

# Check if the bytecode starts with the expected constructor code
echo "Verifying bytecode structure..."
if [[ "$(echo "$bytecode" | cut -c1-10)" != "60c0604052" ]]; then
    echo "Warning: Unexpected constructor code prefix"
fi

# Check if the bytecode length is reasonable (should be substantial for a contract with this functionality)
bytecode_length=$(echo "$bytecode" | wc -c)
if [ "$bytecode_length" -lt 1000 ]; then
    echo "Warning: Bytecode length seems unusually short"
fi

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the bytecode integrity by checking its length and structure

# Extract the bytecode from the JSON file
echo "Extracting bytecode from TestDAppV2.json..."
rg -o '"bin": "([^"]+)"' pkg/contracts/testdappv2/TestDAppV2.json --replace '$1' > bytecode.txt

# Check if the bytecode starts with the expected constructor code
echo "Verifying bytecode structure..."
if [[ "$(cat bytecode.txt | cut -c1-10)" != "60c0604052" ]]; then
    echo "Warning: Unexpected constructor code prefix"
fi

# Check if the bytecode length is reasonable
bytecode_length=$(cat bytecode.txt | wc -c)
echo "Bytecode length: $bytecode_length"

# Verify the bytecode is hex-encoded
if ! [[ "$(cat bytecode.txt)" =~ ^[0-9a-fA-F]+$ ]]; then
    echo "Warning: Bytecode contains non-hex characters"
fi

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify how RevertOptions with default values are handled in IGatewayEVM implementations.

# Search for implementations of IGatewayEVM to review how RevertOptions are used.
fd -e sol 'IGatewayEVM' --exec cat {} \; | rg 'function\s+(deposit|depositAndCall|call)\(' -A 10

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the interface and its implementations
# First, find the interface definition
rg -l "interface IGatewayEVM" 

# Then search for RevertOptions struct definition and usage
rg "struct RevertOptions" -A 5

# Also search for deposit function signatures with RevertOptions
rg "function deposit.*RevertOptions"

#!/bin/bash
# Search for any validation or checks related to RevertOptions
rg "RevertOptions.*address\(0\)" -B 2 -A 2

# Look for any require statements or validation logic around these parameters
rg "require.*RevertOptions" -B 2 -A 2