Optional request id - to be checked and compiled #385
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@arkanoider has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 12 minutes and 16 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (35)
src/app/admin_add_solver.rs (3)
Line range hint
19-31: Consolidate error handling for better maintainability.The current implementation has duplicate error handling logic with identical messages. Consider consolidating the error cases for better maintainability.
let inner_message = msg.get_inner_message_kind(); - let content = if let Some(content) = &inner_message.content { - content - } else { - error!("No pubkey found!"); - return Ok(()); - }; - let npubkey = if let Content::TextMessage(p) = content { - p - } else { - error!("No pubkey found!"); - return Ok(()); - }; + let npubkey = match &inner_message.content { + Some(Content::TextMessage(p)) => p, + _ => { + error!("No pubkey found!"); + return Ok(()); + } + };
Line range hint
44-47: Improve error handling for database operations.The current implementation only logs database errors without propagating them. This could lead to silent failures where the caller assumes success despite a database error.
- match user.create(pool).await { - Ok(r) => info!("Solver added: {:#?}", r), - Err(ee) => error!("Error creating solver: {:#?}", ee), - } + user.create(pool).await.map_err(|e| { + error!("Error creating solver: {:#?}", e); + e + })?; + info!("Solver added successfully");
Line range hint
51-52: Remove unsafe unwrap() on key retrieval.Using
unwrap()onget_keys()could cause a panic if key retrieval fails. This is particularly critical in an admin operation.- let sender_keys = crate::util::get_keys().unwrap(); + let sender_keys = crate::util::get_keys().map_err(|e| { + error!("Failed to get sender keys: {:#?}", e); + anyhow::anyhow!("Failed to get sender keys: {}", e) + })?;src/app/fiat_sent.rs (3)
Line range hint
82-82: Fix inconsistent request_id usage.The final
send_new_order_msgcall usesmsg.get_inner_message_kind().request_idwhile previous calls use the function parameterrequest_id. This inconsistency could break message correlation.- msg.get_inner_message_kind().request_id, + request_id,
Line range hint
21-33: Improve error handling consistency.The error handling could be more consistent:
- Some paths return
Ok(())silently (order not found) while others propagate errors- Missing error logging for invalid order ID
Consider this improvement:
let order = match Order::by_id(pool, order_id).await? { Some(order) => order, None => { - error!("Order Id {order_id} not found!"); - return Ok(()); + let err = format!("Order Id {order_id} not found!"); + error!("{}", err); + return Err(Error::msg(err)); } };
Line range hint
52-55: Add transaction boundary for status update.The order status update should be wrapped in a transaction to ensure atomicity. Currently, if the database update fails after publishing the event, it could lead to inconsistent state.
Consider wrapping the status update in a transaction:
let order_updated = pool.begin().await.map(|mut tx| { if let Ok(order_updated) = update_order_event(my_keys, Status::FiatSent, &order).await { order_updated.update(&mut *tx).await?; tx.commit().await?; Ok(order_updated) } })?;src/app/take_buy.rs (1)
38-39: Update comment to reflect both validation checks.The current comment only mentions one of the two conditions being checked. Consider updating it to be more descriptive:
- // Maker can't take own order + // Validate: must be a buy order and maker can't take own ordersrc/app/order.rs (4)
Line range hint
25-35: Consider enhancing error handling for invoice validation.The error details from
is_valid_invoiceare discarded, which could be valuable for debugging or user feedback. Consider propagating specific error information to help users understand why their invoice was rejected.- match is_valid_invoice(invoice.clone(), None, None).await { - Ok(_) => (), - Err(_) => { + match is_valid_invoice(invoice.clone(), None, None).await { + Ok(_) => (), + Err(e) => { + error!("Invalid invoice: {}", e); send_new_order_msg( request_id, order.id, - Action::IncorrectInvoiceAmount, + Action::IncorrectInvoiceAmount, + Some(e.to_string()), &event.sender, ) .await; return Ok(()); } }
Line range hint
40-55: Consider adding detailed validation messages for range orders.When validating range orders, the error messages could be more specific about why the order was rejected (e.g., "minimum amount greater than maximum amount").
if min >= max { + error!("Invalid range order: min ({}) >= max ({})", min, max); send_cant_do_msg(request_id, order.id, None, &event.sender).await; return Ok(()); } if order.amount != 0 { + error!("Range order cannot specify a fixed amount"); send_new_order_msg( request_id, None, Action::InvalidSatsAmount, - None, + Some("Range orders cannot specify a fixed amount".to_string()), &event.sender, ) .await; return Ok(()); }
Line range hint
60-70: Consider improving error handling for price fetching.The price fetching error is logged but results in a silent failure from the user's perspective. Consider informing the user about the pricing service issue.
Err(e) => { error!("{:?}", e.to_string()); + send_new_order_msg( + request_id, + None, + Action::PricingError, + Some("Unable to fetch current price".to_string()), + &event.sender, + ) + .await; return Ok(()); }
Line range hint
75-95: Consider adding detailed validation messages for amount checks.The amount validation error messages could provide more context about the acceptable ranges to help users correct their orders.
if quote > mostro_settings.max_order_amount as i64 || quote < mostro_settings.min_payment_amount as i64 { + let error_msg = format!( + "Amount must be between {} and {} sats", + mostro_settings.min_payment_amount, + mostro_settings.max_order_amount + ); send_new_order_msg( request_id, None, Action::OutOfRangeSatsAmount, - None, + Some(error_msg), &event.sender, ) .await;src/flow.rs (2)
Line range hint
89-96: Consider adding request_id logging for invoice request trackingThis is a critical point in the order flow where a new invoice is requested. Consider adding debug logging of the request_id to facilitate troubleshooting of invoice-related issues.
+ info!( + "Order Id: {} - Requesting new invoice from buyer, request_id: {:?}", + order.id, request_id + ); send_new_order_msg( request_id, Some(order.id),
Line range hint
10-10: Consider implementing request_id generation strategyWith request_id now being optional, consider implementing a consistent strategy for request_id generation and propagation. This could include:
- Generating request_ids at system boundaries
- Defining when request_ids should be created vs propagated
- Adding request_id to logging context for better traceability
This will help maintain system observability while supporting cases where request_ids are not provided.
src/app/take_sell.rs (1)
Line range hint
71-77: Enhance error logging for better debuggingConsider adding more context to error logs, especially for critical failures. This will help with debugging and monitoring.
- error!("{e}"); + error!("Invalid payment request for order {}: {}", order.id, e);- error!("Error setting market order sats amount: {:#?}", e); + error!("Failed to set market order sats amount for order {}: {:#?}", order.id, e);Also applies to: 132-139
src/app/admin_settle.rs (1)
Line range hint
27-169: Consider enhancing error handling for request ID scenarios.While the current implementation handles the optional request ID well, consider adding specific error logging when a request ID is provided but an operation fails. This would help with debugging and tracing issues in production.
Add error logging in critical sections, for example:
if order.status != Status::Dispute.to_string() { + if let Some(req_id) = request_id { + error!("Settlement attempted with request_id {} for non-disputed order {}", req_id, order.id); + } send_new_order_msg( msg.get_inner_message_kind().request_id, Some(order.id), Action::NotAllowedByStatus, None, &event.sender, ) .await; return Ok(()); }src/app/admin_cancel.rs (1)
Line range hint
91-156: Consider improving error handling and transaction management.Several potential improvements to consider:
- The Lightning invoice cancellation should ideally happen after confirming the dispute exists and within a transaction boundary.
- Multiple database operations (dispute update, order update) should be wrapped in a transaction to ensure atomicity.
- Silent failures in Nostr event publishing could lead to inconsistent state - consider adding retry logic or at least logging for monitoring.
Here's a suggested approach for transaction handling:
// Wrap the critical operations in a transaction let mut tx = pool.begin().await?; // 1. Update dispute if exists if let Ok(mut d) = dispute { d.status = DisputeStatus::SellerRefunded.to_string(); d.update(&mut *tx).await?; } // 2. Cancel Lightning invoice if let Some(hash) = order.hash.as_ref() { ln_client.cancel_hold_invoice(hash).await?; info!("Order Id {}: Funds returned to seller", &order.id); } // 3. Update order let order_updated = update_order_event(my_keys, Status::CanceledByAdmin, &order).await?; order_updated.update(&mut *tx).await?; // Commit all changes tx.commit().await?; // Handle notifications after successful commitsrc/app/rate_user.rs (2)
55-57: Add documentation for the optional request_id parameter.The change to make
request_idoptional is good as it provides more flexibility. However, please add documentation explaining whenNoneis acceptable and how it affects the function's behavior.+/// Updates user reputation based on ratings +/// # Arguments +/// * `request_id` - Optional request ID for tracking responses. None if tracking isn't needed pub async fn update_user_reputation_action( msg: Message, event: &UnwrappedGift,
Line range hint
171-179: Fix inconsistent request ID usage.The function uses the request ID from the message parameter instead of the function parameter. This could lead to confusion and potential bugs.
// Send confirmation message to user that rated send_new_order_msg( - msg.get_inner_message_kind().request_id, + request_id, Some(order.id), Action::RateReceived, Some(Content::RatingUser(rating)),src/app/admin_take_dispute.rs (2)
Line range hint
48-51: Improve error message consistency.The error messages use inconsistent formats:
- "No order id" is used in two places with different contexts (dispute ID missing vs order not found)
- Consider using more specific error messages to differentiate between cases
Consider applying this change:
- return Err(Error::msg("No order id")); + return Err(Error::msg("Dispute ID not provided in message"));And:
- None => return Err(Error::msg("No order id")), + None => return Err(Error::msg("Order not found in database")),Also applies to: 82-82
Line range hint
141-157: Consider extracting tag values as constants.The tag values like "mostrop2p" and "dispute" are hardcoded. Consider extracting these as module-level constants for better maintainability and reusability.
Consider adding these constants at the module level:
const TAG_STATUS: &str = "s"; const TAG_PLATFORM: &str = "y"; const TAG_TYPE: &str = "z"; const PLATFORM_VALUE: &str = "mostrop2p"; const TYPE_DISPUTE: &str = "dispute";src/app/dispute.rs (4)
Line range hint
89-93: Inconsistent request ID usage may cause message correlation issues.The function uses two different sources for request IDs:
- The
request_idparameter (optional)msg.get_inner_message_kind().request_id(from the message)This inconsistency could make it difficult to correlate related messages in the system.
Consider using the same request ID source consistently throughout the function:
- send_cant_do_msg(request_id, Some(order.id), None, &event.sender).await; + send_cant_do_msg(msg.get_inner_message_kind().request_id, Some(order.id), None, &event.sender).await;
Line range hint
115-118: Security: Increase the token range for better security.The current token range (100-999) only provides ~10 bits of entropy, making it potentially vulnerable to brute force attacks.
Consider using a cryptographically secure random number generator with a larger range:
- dispute.buyer_token = Some(rng.gen_range(100..=999)); - dispute.seller_token = Some(rng.gen_range(100..=999)); + use rand::distributions::Uniform; + let token_range = Uniform::new(100_000, 999_999); + dispute.buyer_token = Some(rng.sample(token_range)); + dispute.seller_token = Some(rng.sample(token_range));
Line range hint
132-139: Add transaction to ensure data consistency.The function performs multiple database operations (order update and dispute creation) without a transaction, which could lead to inconsistent state if one operation fails.
Consider wrapping the database operations in a transaction:
let mut tx = pool.begin().await?; // Update order order.update(&mut *tx).await?; // Create dispute let dispute = dispute.create(&mut *tx).await?; tx.commit().await?;
Line range hint
142-148: Improve error handling for better user feedback.The error handling for pubkey parsing silently fails by returning Ok(()). This could make it difficult to debug issues in production.
Consider propagating the error with context:
- match PublicKey::from_str(&message_sender) { - Ok(pk) => pk, - Err(e) => { - error!("Error parsing initiator pubkey: {:#?}", e); - return Ok(()); - } - } + PublicKey::from_str(&message_sender) + .map_err(|e| anyhow::anyhow!("Failed to parse initiator pubkey: {}", e))?src/app.rs (3)
Line range hint
89-196: Consider refactoring the action handling to reduce duplication.The action handling pattern is repeated for each action type with very similar structure:
- Extract request_id
- Call action handler
- Handle errors with warning_msg
Consider introducing a macro or helper function to reduce this boilerplate and ensure consistent error handling.
Example approach:
macro_rules! handle_action { ($msg:expr, $event:expr, $keys:expr, $pool:expr, $request_id:expr, $handler:expr) => { if let Err(e) = $handler($msg, $event, $keys, $pool, $request_id).await { warning_msg(&action, e) } }; } // Usage in match: Action::NewOrder => { handle_action!(msg, &event, &my_keys, &pool, request_id, order_action); }
Line range hint
1-196: Consider implementing request tracking and timeout handling.Since we're now tracking requests with IDs, consider implementing:
- Request timeout handling
- Request deduplication
- Request completion tracking
This would help prevent duplicate processing and allow proper request lifecycle management.
Would you like me to propose a design for implementing request lifecycle management?
Line range hint
76-84: Consider adding structured logging for request tracking.With the introduction of request IDs, it would be valuable to add structured logging to track request lifecycles. This would help with debugging and monitoring.
Example approach:
if msg.get_inner_message_kind().verify() { let request_id = msg.get_inner_message_kind().request_id; tracing::info!( request_id = ?request_id, "Processing message" ); // ... rest of the code }src/app/cancel.rs (3)
181-181: Consider improving error handling for invoice cancellationWhile the
request_idchange is correctly implemented, the error handling for invoice cancellation could be improved. The code checks for hash existence twice:if let Some(hash) = &order.hash { ln_client.cancel_hold_invoice(hash).await?; info!("Order Id {}: Funds returned to seller", &order.id); }Consider consolidating the hash check and adding error logging for cases where the hash is missing.
if let Some(hash) = &order.hash { ln_client.cancel_hold_invoice(hash).await?; info!("Order Id {}: Funds returned to seller", &order.id); +} else { + info!("Order Id {}: No hash found to cancel", &order.id); }Also applies to: 184-188
Line range hint
251-257: Consider refactoring duplicated cancellation logicThere's significant code duplication between
cancel_pay_hold_invoiceandcancel_add_invoice, particularly in:
- Hash checking and invoice cancellation
- Message sending logic
- Order status updates
Consider extracting common functionality into shared helper functions to improve maintainability.
Example refactor for the shared cancellation logic:
async fn handle_order_cancellation( order: &mut Order, my_keys: &Keys, event_sender: &PublicKey, counterparty: &PublicKey, request_id: Option<u64>, ) -> Result<()> { // We publish a new replaceable kind nostr event with the status updated update_order_event(my_keys, Status::Canceled, order).await?; // Send cancellation messages to both parties send_new_order_msg( request_id, Some(order.id), Action::Canceled, None, event_sender, ).await; send_new_order_msg( request_id, Some(order.id), Action::Canceled, None, counterparty, ).await; Ok(()) }Also applies to: 284-307
24-24: Consider documenting the request ID behaviorThe change to make
request_idoptional across these functions is well-implemented. However, consider adding documentation to explain:
- When request IDs are expected to be present vs. absent
- How request IDs are propagated through the message chain
- Impact on message correlation and tracking
This would help future maintainers understand the design decisions and usage patterns.
Also applies to: 181-181, 248-248
src/app/release.rs (1)
Line range hint
263-359: Consider refactoring range order handling logicThe range order handling logic contains significant code duplication between the
Ordering::EqualandOrdering::Greatercases. Consider extracting the common logic into a separate function to improve maintainability and reduce duplication.Example refactor:
async fn create_new_range_order( order: &Order, my_keys: &Keys, new_max: Option<i64>, pool: &Pool<Sqlite> ) -> Result<()> { let mut new_order = order.clone(); new_order.amount = 0; new_order.hash = None; new_order.preimage = None; new_order.buyer_invoice = None; new_order.taken_at = 0; new_order.invoice_held_at = 0; new_order.range_parent_id = Some(order.id); new_order.id = uuid::Uuid::new_v4(); new_order.status = Status::Pending.to_string(); new_order.max_amount = new_max; if new_order.kind == "sell" { new_order.buyer_pubkey = None; new_order.master_buyer_pubkey = None; } else { new_order.seller_pubkey = None; new_order.master_seller_pubkey = None; } let tags = crate::nip33::order_to_tags(&new_order, None); let event = crate::nip33::new_event(my_keys, "", new_order.id.to_string(), tags)?; new_order.event_id = event.id.to_string(); new_order.clone().create(pool).await?; NOSTR_CLIENT .get() .unwrap() .send_event(event) .await .map(|_s| ()) .map_err(|err| err.to_string())?; Ok(()) }src/util.rs (4)
Line range hint
428-428: Consider adding request ID to log messagesTo improve traceability, consider including the request ID in log messages when present.
- info!("Invoice with hash {hash} accepted!"); + info!("Invoice with hash {hash} accepted! Request ID: {:?}", request_id);
561-561: Enhance error logging with request IDConsider including the request ID in error scenarios for better traceability.
- return Err(Error::msg("Not allowed")); + return Err(Error::msg(format!("Not allowed (Request ID: {:?})", request_id)));
605-605: Consider adding debug logging for message sendingTo improve observability, consider adding debug logging that includes the request ID when sending messages.
+ debug!("Sending message with request ID: {:?} to {}", request_id, destination_key); let _ = send_dm(destination_key, sender_keys, message).await;
Line range hint
165-605: Overall Implementation Review: Well-structured and consistentThe changes to make
request_idoptional have been implemented consistently throughout the file. The modifications maintain proper functionality while enhancing flexibility. The test coverage is comprehensive, though some minor logging enhancements could improve observability.Key strengths:
- Consistent handling of optional request IDs
- Proper propagation through function calls
- Maintained error handling
- Good test coverage
Consider implementing a logging strategy that consistently includes request IDs across all logging statements to improve request traceability through the system.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (17)
Cargo.toml(1 hunks)src/app.rs(1 hunks)src/app/add_invoice.rs(1 hunks)src/app/admin_add_solver.rs(1 hunks)src/app/admin_cancel.rs(1 hunks)src/app/admin_settle.rs(2 hunks)src/app/admin_take_dispute.rs(1 hunks)src/app/cancel.rs(3 hunks)src/app/dispute.rs(1 hunks)src/app/fiat_sent.rs(1 hunks)src/app/order.rs(1 hunks)src/app/rate_user.rs(1 hunks)src/app/release.rs(6 hunks)src/app/take_buy.rs(2 hunks)src/app/take_sell.rs(1 hunks)src/flow.rs(4 hunks)src/util.rs(8 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
src/app/add_invoice.rs (1)
Learnt from: grunch
PR: MostroP2P/mostro#376
File: src/app/add_invoice.rs:175-183
Timestamp: 2024-11-06T15:24:55.036Z
Learning: In this codebase, prefer extracting `request_id` directly from the message within functions, instead of passing it as a function parameter.
src/app/release.rs (1)
Learnt from: arkanoider
PR: MostroP2P/mostro#376
File: src/app/release.rs:47-54
Timestamp: 2024-11-07T09:38:52.196Z
Learning: In the codebase, `request_id` is now an `Option<u64>` and can be passed directly to functions without unwrapping, assuming the functions accept an `Option<u64>`.
🔇 Additional comments (34)
Cargo.toml (2)
47-47:
Security concern: Verify SSL/TLS functionality after removing openssl.
Commenting out the openssl dependency with vendored feature could impact secure communications. Please ensure that:
- SSL/TLS support is provided by other dependencies
- All secure communications continue to work as expected
Let's check if other dependencies provide SSL support:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for SSL/TLS dependencies and usage
# Test 1: Search for SSL/TLS related imports and usage
rg -l "ssl|tls|https"
# Test 2: Check if other dependencies provide SSL support
rg -l "ssl|tls" Cargo.toml41-41: LGTM! Verify minimum version requirement.
The mostro-core version bump appears to be related to the request_id changes.
Let's verify if this is the minimum required version:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the request_id changes and version requirements.
Based on the search results, I can see that the codebase has been updated to handle request_id as Option<u64> throughout the codebase, which aligns with making it optional. The version 0.6.11 of mostro-core is being used consistently. Let me generate the final response:
Version 0.6.11 is correctly specified for optional request_id support
The codebase has been properly updated to handle optional request_ids throughout all relevant modules, with consistent type signatures using Option<u64>. The version bump to mostro-core 0.6.11 appears to be the correct minimum version needed for this change.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if mostro-core 0.6.11 is explicitly required for request_id changes
# Test: Search for request_id type changes in mostro-core changelog or git history
rg -A 5 "0.6.11|request_id.*Option"
Length of output: 260
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for request_id usage in the codebase
rg "request_id" -B 2 -A 2
# Check Cargo.lock for mostro-core version history
rg "mostro-core" Cargo.lock -A 3
# Look for any changelog or release notes
fd "CHANGELOG|RELEASES" --type f
Length of output: 39306
src/app/admin_add_solver.rs (1)
17-17: LGTM: Parameter type change aligns with PR objectives.
The modification of request_id to Option<u64> is consistent with the codebase-wide changes and properly handles cases where a request ID might not be provided.
src/app/fiat_sent.rs (1)
18-18: LGTM! Verify callers of this function.
The change to make request_id optional aligns with the PR objectives. However, this is a breaking change that requires updates to all callers.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual implementation of the caller to verify if it's properly handling the new optional parameter.
Let me check how request_id is defined in the caller's context to ensure it matches the new signature.
Let me check how request_id is obtained from the message to ensure it's already an Option type.
Let me try a different approach to find the message type definition.
Based on the evidence gathered, I can now provide the final response:
The change is properly integrated throughout the codebase
The modification of request_id to Option<u64> in fiat_sent_action is safe because:
- The caller in
src/app.rsobtainsrequest_idfrommsg.get_inner_message_kind().request_idwhich is already of typeOption<u64> - All other functions in the codebase consistently use
request_id: Option<u64>in their signatures - Message handling and utility functions throughout the codebase are already designed to work with optional request IDs
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all callers of fiat_sent_action to ensure they're updated
# for the new Option<u64> parameter
# Search for function calls
rg "fiat_sent_action\(" --type rust
Length of output: 178
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the context of the caller in src/app.rs
rg "fiat_sent_action\(" src/app.rs -B 5 -A 5
Length of output: 697
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get broader context to see request_id definition
rg "request_id" src/app.rs -B 10 -A 2
Length of output: 7723
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the implementation of get_inner_message_kind() to verify request_id type
ast-grep --pattern 'fn get_inner_message_kind'
Length of output: 48
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for struct or type definitions containing request_id
rg "request_id.*:" --type rust -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 8550
src/app/take_buy.rs (2)
Line range hint 1-116: Implementation consistently handles optional request_id.
The function maintains its core logic while properly propagating the optional request_id to all dependent function calls. The error handling paths and success path are all consistent with the new optional nature of the request ID.
21-21: Verify all callers handle the optional request_id.
The change from u64 to Option<u64> is a breaking change that requires updates to all callers of this function.
Let's verify all callers have been updated:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the actual call site to verify if it's passing the request_id correctly.
Let me verify the type of request_id in the caller context to ensure it matches the new signature.
Let me check the type of request_id from the message type definition to confirm it's already Option.
Let me try a different approach to find the message type definition.
The request_id parameter change is consistent with the codebase
The verification shows that:
- The caller in
src/app.rsgetsrequest_idfrommsg.get_inner_message_kind().request_id - All similar functions in the codebase (
take_sell_action,fiat_sent_action, etc.) already useOption<u64>forrequest_id - The change aligns with the existing pattern across the codebase where
request_idis consistently typed asOption<u64>
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for direct calls to take_buy_action
rg -A 3 "take_buy_action\("
Length of output: 515
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more context around the caller in src/app.rs
rg -B 5 -A 5 "take_buy_action\(" src/app.rs
Length of output: 694
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for request_id declaration/type in src/app.rs
rg -B 3 -A 1 "request_id" src/app.rs
Length of output: 4511
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the message type definition that contains request_id
ast-grep --pattern 'struct $_ {
$$$
request_id: $_
$$$
}'
Length of output: 65
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for request_id in struct definitions
rg -B 2 -A 2 "request_id.*:" --type rust
Length of output: 8550
src/app/order.rs (1)
17-17: LGTM: Parameter type change aligns with PR objectives.
The change from u64 to Option<u64> for request_id is consistent with making request IDs optional.
Let's verify that this change is consistently applied across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the usage of request_id in function calls to ensure consistency.
Parameter type change is consistently implemented across the codebase
The verification shows that request_id: Option<u64> is consistently used across all relevant functions in the codebase, including:
- Order processing functions in
src/app/order.rs - Payment handling in
src/app/release.rs - Invoice management in
src/util.rs - Administrative functions in
src/app/admin_*.rs - User actions in various app modules
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistent usage of Option<u64> for request_id parameters
# Test: Search for function signatures with request_id parameter
rg -g '*.rs' 'fn.*request_id.*\)'
Length of output: 453
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for function calls with request_id parameter
rg -g '*.rs' 'request_id:' -A 1
Length of output: 2743
src/flow.rs (3)
Line range hint 73-80: LGTM! Consistent request_id handling
The change maintains consistency with the previous message, ensuring both buyer and seller notifications use the same optional request_id for correlation.
Line range hint 99-106: Verify if sending None content is intentional
While the request_id handling is consistent, this message sends None as content while other messages in this function send Some(Content::Order). Please verify if this difference is intentional.
Let's check the content patterns in other message sends:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the ripgrep results, I can now see a clear pattern of how send_new_order_msg is used throughout the codebase. Looking at the content parameter usage:
-
Messages with
Nonecontent are typically used for:- Status notifications (NotAllowedByStatus, IsNotYourOrder, etc.)
- Simple acknowledgments (Canceled, Released, InvoiceUpdated)
- Waiting states (WaitingBuyerInvoice, WaitingSellerToPay)
-
Messages with
Some(Content::...)are used when actual data needs to be transmitted:- Order details:
Some(Content::Order(...)) - Payment requests:
Some(Content::PaymentRequest(...)) - Dispute information:
Some(Content::Dispute(...)) - Rating information:
Some(Content::RatingUser(...))
- Order details:
The usage of None in the WaitingBuyerInvoice message is consistent with other waiting state notifications in the codebase, where no additional data needs to be transmitted. Therefore:
Sending None as content for WaitingBuyerInvoice action is correct and consistent
This is a simple status notification to the seller, similar to other waiting states in the codebase, and doesn't require additional content to be transmitted.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check content patterns in send_new_order_msg calls
# Look for all send_new_order_msg calls and their content parameter patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'send_new_order_msg(
$$$,
$$$,
$$$,
$_content,
$$$
)'
Length of output: 239
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find send_new_order_msg calls
# First, let's use ripgrep to find the function calls with context
rg "send_new_order_msg" -A 5 -B 2
# Also search for the function definition to understand its parameters
rg "fn send_new_order_msg"
Length of output: 26225
Line range hint 64-71: Verify the impact of optional request_id on message handling
The removal of the default request_id value (previously defaulting to 1) could affect message tracking and order flow handling.
Let's check how request_id is used in message handling:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now provide a definitive response about the safety of the optional request_id change:
Optional request_id handling is safe and consistent
The codebase has been properly designed to handle optional request IDs throughout the message flow:
- All message handling functions consistently accept
request_id: Option<u64> - The
send_new_order_msgfunction and all its callers handle optional request IDs - Message construction via
Message::new_order()andMessage::cant_do()support optional request IDs - No code paths assume request_id is always present
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check how request_id is used in message handling and if any code assumes it's always present
# Search for request_id usage in message handling code
rg -A 5 'request_id' --type rust
# Look for any message tracking or correlation logic
ast-grep --pattern 'fn $_ ($$$request_id$$$) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 239
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more focused search approach
# Search for request_id usage patterns
rg "request_id" --type rust -B 2 -A 2
# Search for send_new_order_msg function definition and usage
rg "send_new_order_msg" --type rust -B 2 -A 2
# Look for message handling structures/types
rg "struct Message" --type rust -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 55323
src/app/take_sell.rs (3)
22-22: LGTM: Appropriate type change for optional request_id
The change from u64 to Option<u64> is a good approach for making the request_id parameter optional, following Rust's idiomatic patterns.
Line range hint 39-40: Verify consistent request_id handling in message functions
The request_id is properly propagated to all message sending functions. Let's verify that these helper functions (send_cant_do_msg, send_new_order_msg, etc.) are also updated to handle Option<u64>.
Also applies to: 71-77, 108-115, 132-139
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response as we have sufficient information about the request_id handling across all message functions:
All message functions properly handle Option request_id parameter
The verification confirms that all message-sending and status-related functions consistently handle request_id as Option<u64>:
send_cant_do_msg: Takesrequest_id: Option<u64>send_new_order_msg: Takesrequest_id: Option<u64>set_waiting_invoice_status: Takesrequest_id: Option<u64>show_hold_invoice: Properly propagates the optional request_id- All caller functions in the codebase pass the request_id as Option
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if all message sending functions are updated to handle Option<u64>
# Search for function definitions of message sending utilities
echo "Checking message sending function signatures..."
rg -U "fn (send_cant_do_msg|send_new_order_msg|set_waiting_invoice_status|show_hold_invoice).*request_id.*"
# Search for any remaining direct u64 request_id parameters that might need updating
echo "Checking for any remaining u64 request_id parameters..."
rg "request_id:\s*u64"
Length of output: 360
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to find the message sending functions and their implementations
# Search for function definitions and their implementations
echo "Searching for message sending functions..."
rg -U "async fn send_" -A 5
echo "Searching for status-related functions..."
rg -U "async fn (set_waiting_invoice_status|show_hold_invoice)" -A 5
# Also search for request_id parameter usage in general
echo "Searching for request_id parameter usage..."
rg "request_id" -A 2
Length of output: 26214
Line range hint 119-129: Verify market price calculation security
The market price calculation is a critical security point as it determines payment amounts. Ensure that:
- The premium calculation cannot result in negative amounts
- There's no potential for integer overflow in amount calculations
- The market price source is reliable and validated
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now provide a comprehensive verification of the market price calculation security concerns. Let me generate the final response:
Market price calculations are properly secured with safeguards
The codebase implements several security measures for market price calculations:
- Overflow protection: Premium calculations use floating point arithmetic and explicit conversion to prevent overflow (
sats += (premium as f64) / 100_f64 * sats) - Negative amount checks: The code explicitly validates against negative amounts with a dedicated error type
MostroError::NegativeAmount - Market price source reliability:
- Uses Yadio API with proper error handling
- Implements retries and fallback logic for API failures
- Validates responses before processing
The key security measures are implemented in:
src/util.rs: Premium calculation with proper type conversionsrc/error.rs: Dedicated error types for amount validationsrc/app/take_sell.rs: Market price validation before order processing
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for proper validation in market price calculations
# Look for market price calculation implementations
echo "Checking market price calculation implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'fn get_market_amount_and_fee($$$)'
# Check for overflow protection in calculations
echo "Checking for overflow protection..."
rg -A 5 "premium|amount|fee" --type rust
Length of output: 37222
src/app/admin_settle.rs (2)
27-27: LGTM: Request ID parameter change aligns with the PR objective.
The change from u64 to Option<u64> for the request_id parameter properly implements the optional request ID feature.
167-167: Verify do_payment compatibility with optional request_id.
The do_payment function is now being called with an optional request ID. Please ensure that the do_payment function signature has been updated to handle Option<u64>.
✅ Verification successful
The do_payment function correctly accepts an optional request ID
The function signature in src/app/release.rs shows that do_payment is already implemented to handle Option<u64> as the request_id parameter:
async fn do_payment(mut order: Order, request_id: Option<u64>) -> Result<()>🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for do_payment function definition to verify its signature
ast-grep --pattern 'fn do_payment($_, request_id: $_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 66
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for do_payment function definition with async keyword
ast-grep --pattern 'async fn do_payment($_, request_id: $_) -> $_ {
$$$
}'
# Also try searching with ripgrep for any do_payment function definition
rg "fn do_payment" -A 5
Length of output: 518
src/app/admin_cancel.rs (2)
Line range hint 47-47: LGTM! Consistent handling of optional request_id.
The function correctly handles the optional request_id throughout its execution path, properly propagating it to message construction and notification functions.
Also applies to: 89-89, 156-156
25-25: LGTM! Verify request_id usage throughout the codebase.
The change to make request_id optional is consistent with the PR objectives.
Let's verify that all usages of request_id in the codebase handle the Option type correctly:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
All request_id usages properly handle Option type
The codebase-wide search confirms that all occurrences of request_id are consistently declared as Option<u64> across various modules including:
- Flow handlers (
src/flow.rs) - Utility functions (
src/util.rs) - All app handlers (
src/app/*)
The pattern shows consistent handling of the optional type in function signatures and no direct unwrapping of the value, indicating safe usage throughout.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for direct request_id usage to ensure proper Option handling
rg -A 3 'request_id:.*u64'
# Search for MessageKind::new calls to verify request_id parameter usage
ast-grep --pattern 'MessageKind::new($request_id, $_, $_, $_)'
Length of output: 6219
src/app/rate_user.rs (1)
55-57: Verify message handling functions support optional request IDs.
Please ensure that send_cant_do_msg and send_new_order_msg properly handle None values for request IDs.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that both send_cant_do_msg and send_new_order_msg functions are defined in src/util.rs and are widely used throughout the codebase. Let me verify their implementations.
Optional request IDs are properly handled in message sending functions
Both send_cant_do_msg and send_new_order_msg functions are implemented to accept Option<u64> for the request_id parameter, and this is correctly propagated to the message construction via Message::cant_do and Message::new_order methods. The functions are used extensively throughout the codebase and all calls properly handle the optional request ID.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for message sending function implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'fn send_cant_do_msg($$$)'
ast-grep --pattern 'fn send_new_order_msg($$$)'
Length of output: 97
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for message sending functions with broader patterns and context
rg "send_cant_do_msg|send_new_order_msg" -A 5
# Also search for any function calls to these methods
rg "\.send_cant_do_msg|\.send_new_order_msg" -A 2
Length of output: 26583
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the implementation of both message sending functions
rg -A 10 "^pub async fn send_cant_do_msg|^pub async fn send_new_order_msg" src/util.rs
Length of output: 830
src/app/add_invoice.rs (1)
21-21: LGTM! The change to make request_id optional is technically sound.
The modification aligns with the PR objective and maintains compatibility with the error handling and messaging throughout the function.
src/app/admin_take_dispute.rs (2)
44-44: LGTM: Signature change aligns with the optional request ID pattern.
The change from u64 to Option<u64> for request_id is consistent with the broader codebase changes and properly handles cases where request IDs are not provided.
Line range hint 134-139: Consider adding retry logic for critical notifications.
The message sending to buyers and sellers is critical for dispute resolution workflow. Consider implementing retry logic or at least logging failed attempts to ensure parties are properly notified.
Let's check if there are any existing retry mechanisms in the codebase:
src/app/dispute.rs (1)
24-24: Verify all call sites for the updated function signature.
The change from u64 to Option<u64> for request_id is appropriate. However, we should ensure all calling code has been updated accordingly.
✅ Verification successful
All call sites have been properly updated for the Optional request_id parameter
The verification shows that both the function definition and all its call sites are consistent with the Option<u64> type for request_id:
- In
src/app/dispute.rs, the function is correctly defined withrequest_id: Option<u64> - In
src/app.rs, the function is called withrequest_idwhich is already an Option type - The related function
admin_take_dispute_actionalso uses the same optional parameter consistently
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all calls to dispute_action to verify they've been updated
rg -A 2 "dispute_action\("
Length of output: 834
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the function signatures and parameter types in both caller and callee
ast-grep --pattern 'fn dispute_action($$$)'
echo "---"
ast-grep --pattern 'fn admin_take_dispute_action($$$)'
echo "---"
# Check how request_id is passed in the calling code
rg -B 2 "dispute_action\(" src/app.rs
Length of output: 553
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual content of these files to see the parameter types
cat src/app/dispute.rs
echo "---"
cat src/app/admin_take_dispute.rs
echo "---"
# And check the context of how request_id is defined and passed in app.rs
rg -B 10 -A 2 "dispute_action\(" src/app.rs
Length of output: 13370
src/app.rs (1)
85-87: Verify request_id extraction and error propagation.
The extraction of request_id looks correct, but we should verify that the inner message kind properly handles potential deserialization errors for this field.
✅ Verification successful
Extraction of request_id is properly handled and safe.
The codebase shows that request_id is consistently handled as Option<u64> throughout the system:
- It's properly defined as an optional field in message structures
- The extraction at line 85 is safe as it accesses the field through the
get_inner_message_kind()method - Error propagation is handled through proper message responses using
send_cant_do_msgandsend_new_order_msg - Test coverage exists for message serialization/deserialization including
request_id
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the request_id field definition and deserialization logic
ast-grep --pattern 'struct $_ {
$$$
request_id: Option<u64>,
$$$
}'
# Search for request_id deserialization tests
rg -l 'test.*request_id'
Length of output: 102
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for request_id field and its usage
rg "request_id" -A 3 -B 3
# Also search for message kind related structs and implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'impl $_ {
$$$
fn get_inner_message_kind($$$) -> $_ {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
# Search for any tests containing request_id
rg "request_id.*test" -A 5 -B 5
Length of output: 52146
src/app/cancel.rs (2)
24-24: LGTM: Clean implementation of optional request ID
The change to make request_id optional is consistently applied throughout the function while preserving all existing cancellation logic. The modification maintains backward compatibility and properly propagates the optional ID to all message sending utilities.
248-248: LGTM: Optional request ID properly implemented
The change to make request_id optional is correctly implemented and consistently used throughout the function.
src/app/release.rs (4)
48-48: LGTM: Correctly handles optional request_id
The change correctly passes the optional request_id to send_new_order_msg, aligning with the codebase's new approach to handle optional request IDs.
67-67: LGTM: Consistent implementation of optional request_id
The function signature and internal calls have been correctly updated to handle optional request IDs while maintaining proper error handling and control flow.
Also applies to: 155-155
180-180: LGTM: Proper error handling with optional request_id
The function correctly propagates the optional request ID to the error handling path while maintaining robust payment failure handling.
251-251: LGTM: Proper handling of optional request_id
The function signature has been correctly updated to handle optional request IDs, maintaining consistency with the rest of the codebase.
src/util.rs (5)
165-165: LGTM: Optional request ID parameter change
The change to make request_id optional is consistent with the PR objective and maintains proper functionality.
366-366: LGTM: Consistent handling of optional request ID
The changes properly handle the optional request ID throughout the hold invoice flow, maintaining consistency with dependent function calls.
Also applies to: 424-424
491-491: LGTM: Optional request ID properly handled
The change maintains proper functionality while making the request ID optional.
535-535: LGTM: Rating system properly handles optional request ID
The change maintains proper functionality for the rating system while making the request ID optional.
588-588: LGTM: Error messaging properly handles optional request ID
The change maintains proper functionality for error message communication while making the request ID optional.
@grunch
start from here.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
request_idacross multiple functions, allowing it to be optional.Bug Fixes
request_idmay not be provided.Refactor
Option<u64>forrequest_idin various actions, including order processing and invoice management.Chores
mostro-core.openssldependency.rust-toolchain.toml.