feat(accounts): Add methods to check if an account accepts certain messages or queries (interface assertion) #19361
Conversation
WalkthroughWalkthroughThe update introduces three new methods ( Changes
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
|
@testinginprod your pull request is missing a changelog! |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Files selected for processing (2)
- x/accounts/internal/implementation/implementation.go (1 hunks)
- x/accounts/internal/implementation/implementation_test.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 3
x/accounts/internal/implementation/implementation.go (3)
- 129-133: The
HasExecmethod correctly checks if a message can be executed by looking up the message name in theExecuteHandlersSchema. This implementation is efficient and follows best practices.- 135-139: The
HasQuerymethod implementation is consistent with theHasExecmethod, correctly checking the ability to execute a query based on the message name. This maintains consistency and clarity in the codebase.- 141-144: The
HasInitmethod uses a direct comparison to check if the account uses the provided init message, which is a straightforward and efficient approach. Ensure that theInitHandlerSchema.RequestSchema.Nameis always correctly set during initialization to avoid false negatives.
| t.Run("Has* methods", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
| ok := impl.HasExec(&types.StringValue{}) | ||
| require.True(t, ok) | ||
|
|
||
| ok = impl.HasExec(&types.Duration{}) | ||
| require.False(t, ok) | ||
|
|
||
| ok = impl.HasQuery(&types.StringValue{}) | ||
| require.True(t, ok) | ||
|
|
||
| ok = impl.HasQuery(&types.Duration{}) | ||
| require.False(t, ok) | ||
|
|
||
| ok = impl.HasInit(&types.StringValue{}) | ||
| require.True(t, ok) | ||
|
|
||
| ok = impl.HasInit(&types.Duration{}) | ||
| require.False(t, ok) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test cases for HasExec, HasQuery, and HasInit methods are correctly implemented, ensuring that these methods behave as expected for different message types. However, consider adding negative test cases or edge cases, if any, to cover more scenarios.
Description
Adds methods in the internal implementation to check if an account accepts certain messages or queries, this can be used as a way to check for interface implementation.
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.mdReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...
Summary by CodeRabbit