GH-711: review three #710

bertllll · 2025-09-25T11:27:12Z

No description provided.

cursor · 2025-09-25T11:27:16Z

You have run out of free Bugbot PR reviews for this billing cycle. This will reset on October 14.

To receive reviews on all of your PRs, visit the Cursor dashboard to activate Pro and start your 14-day free trial.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T07:36:20Z

multinode_integration_tests/tests/verify_bill_payment.rs

        };
        let transaction_fee_margin = PurePercentage::try_from(15).unwrap();
-        transaction_fee_margin.add_percent_to(gas_limit_dev_chain * gas_price_major)
+        transaction_fee_margin.increase_by_percent_for(gas_limit_dev_chain * gas_price_major)


You don't need to keep the word _for in the functions's name. Please eliminate it.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T07:52:54Z

node/src/accountant/mod.rs

        };
        let analyzed_accounts =
-            convert_qualified_into_analyzed_payables_in_test(unadjusted_qualified_accounts.clone());
+            convert_qualified_p_into_analyzed_p(unadjusted_qualified_accounts.clone());


This shorthand is not helping here, maybe even introducing jargon. I'd suggest if you use the name convert_qualified_payable_into_analyzed_payable, or if you want shorter than qualified_to_analyzed_payable.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T08:01:46Z

node/src/accountant/mod.rs

-            "ERROR: {test_name}: Payable scanner is blocked from preparing instructions for payments. \
-            The cause appears to be in competence of the user."
+            "ERROR: {test_name}: Payable scanner is unable to generate payment instructions. \
+            It looks like only the user can resolve this issue."


Instead of saying, "It looks like...", we can just direct the user by saying, "The user will have to resolve the issue manually."

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T08:11:51Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/disqualification_arbiter.rs

    use crate::accountant::payment_adjuster::miscellaneous::data_structures::UnconfirmedAdjustment;
    use crate::accountant::payment_adjuster::test_utils::local_utils::{
-        make_meaningless_weighed_account, make_non_guaranteed_unconfirmed_adjustment,
+        make_meaningless_unconfirmed_adjustment, make_meaningless_weighed_account,


I think the word, meaningless is unnecessary, unless you have an alternate fn which says, meaningful, the prefix word make is enough to signify that it's meant for the test, and the developer should consider that it's fields were generated for testing purposes.

I mean this for both make_meaningless_unconfirmed_adjustment and make_meaningless_weighed_account.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T08:14:50Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/disqualification_arbiter.rs

-            .iter()
-            .filter(|wallet| wallet.address() == wallet_3)
-            .collect_vec();
-        assert_eq!(wallets_same_as_wallet_3.len(), 1);


I've no idea why you decided to remove this... I thought you prefer stronger tests.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T08:19:43Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/logging_and_diagnostics/diagnostics.rs

    use web3::types::Address;

-    pub fn thriving_competitor_found_diagnostics(
+    pub fn diagnostics_for_accounts_above_disqualification_limit(


Does it mean that these accounts are disqualified or qualified? I'd suggest you either add it as a comment, or possibly rename the fn to make it clear.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T08:37:54Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/miscellaneous/data_structures.rs


+pub enum AccountsByFinalization {
+    Unexhausted(Vec<AdjustedAccountBeforeFinalization>),
+    Finalized(Vec<PayableAccount>),


What does these enum variants? Their name doesn't appear to be mutually exclusive. For example, if you're using Unexhausted, then shouldn't the other be Exhausted? Similarly, if it's Finalized, then shouldn't the other variant be Incomplete?

Since they aren't mutually exclusive, I find them very confusing.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T08:47:51Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/preparatory_analyser/mod.rs

            |tx_fee_check_err_opt: Option<TransactionFeeImmoderateInsufficiency>,
             service_fee_check_err_opt: Option<ServiceFeeImmoderateInsufficiency>| {
-                PaymentAdjusterError::AbsolutelyInsufficientBalance {
+                PaymentAdjusterError::AbsoluteFeeInsufficiency {


I'd prefer the older name. That's clearer.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T08:57:08Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/preparatory_analyser/mod.rs

        let number_of_accounts = current_set_of_accounts.len();
-        PaymentAdjusterError::AbsolutelyInsufficientServiceFeeBalancePostTxFeeAdjustment {
-            original_number_of_accounts: self.original_number_of_accounts,
+        PaymentAdjusterError::AbsoluteFeeInsufficiency {


Can't it be simply "InsufficientBalance"?

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T09:08:29Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/preparatory_analyser/mod.rs

+                )
+                .unwrap();
+            assert_eq!(adjustment_is_needed_actual, *adjustment_is_needed_expected);
+        });


Nicely done! 👏

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T09:11:36Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/preparatory_analyser/mod.rs

        assert_eq!(
            result,
-            LateServiceFeeSingleTxErrorFactory {
+            LaterServiceFeeErrorFactory {


Shouldn't this be LateServiceFeeErrorFactory instead? I'm implying to use the word Late instead of Later.

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T11:07:34Z

node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/service_fee_adjuster.rs

+                    below_disq_limit.push(current)
+                }
+                (above_or_even_to_disq_limit, below_disq_limit)
+            };


I think this could be further refactored like this:

let fold_guts = |(mut above_limit, mut below_limit): (Vec<_>, Vec<_>), current: UnconfirmedAdjustment| { let disqualification_limit = current.disqualification_limit_minor(); if current.proposed_adjusted_balance_minor >= disqualification_limit { diagnostics_for_accounts_above_disqualification_limit(&current, disqualification_limit); let adjusted = UnconfirmedAdjustment { proposed_adjusted_balance_minor: disqualification_limit, ..current }; above_limit.push(adjusted); } else { below_limit.push(current); } (above_limit, below_limit) };

utkarshg6 · 2025-09-29T11:26:07Z

node/src/accountant/scanners/scanners_utils.rs

+                "Balance wei: {}\n\
+                 Threshold:   {}",
+                payable.balance_wei, threshold
+            );


Remove this...

utkarshg6

Continue with node/src/accountant/payment_adjuster/non_unit_tests/mod.rs

Bert added 11 commits March 20, 2025 21:20

GH-711: knocking off commented findings; interim commit

6c8b103

GH-711: fixing percentage.rs; yet more to go with

1239a15

GH-711: percentage.rs finished

b7c7900

GH-711: some progress in verify_bill_payment

4fc1a1a

GH-711: a few more fixes in verify_bill_payments.rs

8dd256d

GH-711: a few more shovels

d306718

GH-711: interim commit

e43f655

GH-711: fixes in the non-unit test

86b5a9a

GH-711: interim commit

baf2745

GH-711: interim commit

3499edd

GH-711: review two finished

2e150b4

utkarshg6 reviewed Sep 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

GH-711: review three #710

GH-711: review three #710

bertllll commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

cursor bot commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GH-711: review three #710

Are you sure you want to change the base?

GH-711: review three #710

Conversation

bertllll commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

cursor bot commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

utkarshg6 Sep 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading