refactor: bump go-header and use DeleteRange method for rollback #2638
Conversation
|
The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow CI and Release / buf-check (pull_request).
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @julienrbrt, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request focuses on enhancing the rollback functionality by integrating a new, more granular method from an updated external dependency. The change improves how historical data is managed during rollback, ensuring more precise state restoration. It also includes necessary dependency management updates to facilitate this refactor.
Highlights
- Dependency Update: The pull request updates the
go-headerdependency, specifically to utilize a newDeleteRangemethod for rollback operations. - Rollback Logic Refactor: The rollback mechanism in both
evm/singleandtestappapplications has been refactored to use the more preciseDeleteRangemethod instead of the olderDeleteTomethod for managing header and data store states. - Temporary Module Replacement: A temporary
replacedirective has been added to thego.modfiles, pointing to a specific commit in a forkedgo-headerrepository. This is a temporary measure until the upstream change is merged.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
|
@tac0turtle could you check if you still get the error in EVM? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates the go-header dependency and refactors the rollback logic to use the new DeleteRange method instead of DeleteTo. This change appears to correctly implement the rollback to delete blocks after a specific height. However, I've found a critical issue in the rollback command where a uint64 underflow can occur if the node is at genesis height, potentially leading to unintended data deletion. I've also suggested a minor refactoring to reduce code duplication in the rollback logic. Please address the critical issue before merging.
| if err := headerStore.DeleteRange(goCtx, height+1, headerStore.Height()); err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to rollback header sync service state: %w", err) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if err := dataStore.DeleteTo(goCtx, height); err != nil { | ||
| if err := dataStore.DeleteRange(goCtx, height+1, dataStore.Height()); err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to rollback data sync service state: %w", err) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are a couple of points to address in this block:
-
Critical Bug: There's a potential for unintended data deletion. When the rollback command is run without a
--heightflag on a node at genesis (height 0), theheightvariable at line 61 becomes(2^64)-1due touint64underflow. Consequently,height+1inDeleteRangewraps to0, which would cause all headers and data to be deleted from the stores. A check should be added around line 61 to prevent rollbacks from height 0. -
Code Duplication (Medium): The logic for rolling back
headerStoreanddataStoreis identical. You could refactor this into a generic helper function to reduce code duplication, especially since the same logic is present inapps/testapp/cmd/rollback.go.
For example, you could define a generic function:
func rollbackStore[H header.Header[H]](ctx context.Context, store header.Store[H], height uint64, name string) error {
if err := store.DeleteRange(ctx, height+1, store.Height()); err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("failed to rollback %s state: %w", name, err)
}
return nil
}| if err := headerStore.DeleteRange(goCtx, height+1, headerStore.Height()); err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to rollback header sync service state: %w", err) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if err := dataStore.DeleteTo(goCtx, height); err != nil { | ||
| if err := dataStore.DeleteRange(goCtx, height+1, dataStore.Height()); err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to rollback data sync service state: %w", err) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are a couple of points to address in this block:
-
Critical Bug: There's a potential for unintended data deletion. When the rollback command is run without a
--heightflag on a node at genesis (height 0), theheightvariable at line 61 becomes(2^64)-1due touint64underflow. Consequently,height+1inDeleteRangewraps to0, which would cause all headers and data to be deleted from the stores. A check should be added around line 61 to prevent rollbacks from height 0. -
Code Duplication (Medium): The logic for rolling back
headerStoreanddataStoreis identical. You could refactor this into a generic helper function to reduce code duplication, especially since the same logic is present inapps/evm/single/cmd/rollback.go.
For example, you could define a generic function:
func rollbackStore[H header.Header[H]](ctx context.Context, store header.Store[H], height uint64, name string) error {
if err := store.DeleteRange(ctx, height+1, store.Height()); err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("failed to rollback %s state: %w", name, err)
}
return nil
}
Code Review for PR #2638OverviewThis PR addresses a critical bug in the rollback functionality by updating the ✅ Code Quality and Best PracticesPositive aspects:
Code Quality Score: ✅ Good
|
Code Review: Refactor rollback to use DeleteRange methodSummaryThis PR updates the rollback functionality to use the new DeleteRange method from the go-header library instead of the deprecated DeleteTo method. The change addresses a critical issue where DeleteTo was performing the reverse operation, causing verification issues during broadcast after rollback. ✅ Code Quality & Best PracticesGood practices observed:
🔍 Code Changes AnalysisMain Logic Changes (rollback.go files)The change from:
Analysis: This change is semantically correct. The new implementation:
🐛 Potential Issues & Recommendations1. Edge Case HandlingIssue: What happens when 2. Atomic OperationsIssue: If header store rollback succeeds but data store rollback fails, the system could be in an inconsistent state. 3. Mock GenerationPositive: The mock file correctly includes the new DeleteRange method, ensuring tests can still pass. 🔒 Security Considerations
⚡ Performance Considerations
🧪 Test Coverage RecommendationsThe PR includes updated mocks but consider adding/updating:
📋 Dependencies & DeploymentTemporary dependency: Using a fork of go-header until upstream PR is merged
✅ Overall AssessmentThis is a well-executed refactoring that:
Recommendation: APPROVE with the edge case validation suggestion as a minor improvement. 📝 Minor Suggestions
Great work on identifying and fixing this critical issue! 🎯 |
Code Review: Refactor rollback to use DeleteRange methodSummaryThis PR updates the rollback commands to use ✅ Positive Aspects1. Correct API Usage
2. Comprehensive Coverage
3. Good Test Coverage
🔍 Technical AnalysisAPI Correctness: // Before: DeleteTo deletes everything UP TO height (inclusive)
headerStore.DeleteTo(ctx, height)
// After: DeleteRange deletes from height+1 to current height (exclusive end)
headerStore.DeleteRange(ctx, height+1, headerStore.Height())The new approach is more explicit and avoids the ambiguity of what "DeleteTo" means. Math Validation:
|
Code Review: Rollback Refactor with DeleteRange MethodSummaryThis PR addresses a critical bug in the rollback functionality by switching from ✅ Positive Aspects
🔍 Areas for Improvement1. Error Handling EnhancementThe current error handling could be more robust: // Current
if err := headerStore.DeleteRange(goCtx, height+1, headerStore.Height()); err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("failed to rollback header sync service state: %w", err)
}
// Suggested improvement - validate range first
currentHeight := headerStore.Height()
if height+1 > currentHeight {
return fmt.Errorf("rollback height %d is already at or beyond current height %d", height, currentHeight)
}
if err := headerStore.DeleteRange(goCtx, height+1, currentHeight); err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("failed to rollback header sync service state from %d to %d: %w", height+1, currentHeight, err)
}2. Edge Case Considerations
3. Mock GenerationThe generated mock in 🧪 Testing Recommendations
🔒 Security Considerations
📋 Minor Issues
🏗️ Performance ConsiderationsThe ✅ Overall AssessmentThis is a solid bug fix that addresses a critical issue in the rollback functionality. The implementation is correct and consistent. The main suggestions are around defensive programming (input validation) and potential code reuse opportunities. Recommendation: Approve with minor suggestions for enhancement. Note: Make sure to remove the temporary replace directive once celestiaorg/go-header#347 is merged and released. |
Code Review✅ Positive AspectsClear Bug Fix: This PR addresses a critical issue where DeleteTo was behaving in reverse, causing verification problems after rollback operations. The semantic change from DeleteTo(height) to DeleteRange(height+1, store.Height()) makes the intent much clearer. Consistent Application: The fix is properly applied across all rollback commands (testapp and evm/single), ensuring consistency across the codebase. Proper Dependency Management: The temporary fork usage with clear TODO comments shows good dependency management practices while waiting for upstream merge. 🔍 Detailed AnalysisCode Quality & Best Practices
Logic CorrectnessThe mathematical change is sound:
This correctly preserves blocks 0 through height while removing blocks height+1 and above. Dependencies & Security
Test Coverage
📋 RecommendationsHigh Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
✅ Overall AssessmentThis is a well-executed bug fix that addresses a critical rollback issue. The semantic improvement from DeleteTo to DeleteRange with explicit bounds makes the code much more maintainable. Ready to merge after addressing test coverage concerns and ensuring the upstream PR gets merged to remove the fork dependency. Impact: Critical - fixes rollback verification issues |
Pull Request ReviewSummaryThis PR refactors the rollback commands to use the new Code Quality & Best Practices ✅Positive aspects:
Minor considerations:
Correctness & Bug Fixes ✅Fixed the core issue:
Consistent with internal store implementation: Performance Considerations ✅Improvements:
Security Concerns ✅No security issues identified:
Test Coverage
|
|
@claude shut up |
|
Claude finished @julienrbrt's task —— View job Understood! I'll stop providing additional reviews on this PR. |
Closes: #2631
Blocked on celestiaorg/go-header#347