Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[KILO]: Refactor/evaluate htlc view #9097

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ProofOfKeags
Copy link
Collaborator

@ProofOfKeags ProofOfKeags commented Sep 12, 2024

Change Description

This is the next logical chunk extracted off the front of #8755. This is a pure refactor change. The core behavior of the code modified should be identical.

Steps to Test

make unit

Pull Request Checklist

Testing

  • Your PR passes all CI checks.
  • Tests covering the positive and negative (error paths) are included.
  • Bug fixes contain tests triggering the bug to prevent regressions.

Code Style and Documentation

📝 Please see our Contribution Guidelines for further guidance.

The purpose of this commit is to begin the process of packing
symmetric fields into the newly introduced Dual structure. The
reason for this is that the Dual structure has a handy indexing
method where we can supply a ChannelParty and get back a value.
This will cut down on the amount of branching code in the main
lines of the codebase logic, making it easier to follow what is
going on.
This commit begins the process of moving towards a more principled
means of state tracking. We eliminate the mutateState argument from
processAddEntry and processRemoveEntry and move the responsibility
of mutating said state to the call-sites.

The current call-sites of these functions still have their *own*
mutateState argument which will be eliminated during upcoming commits.
However, following the principle of micro-commits I opted to break
these changes up to make review simpler.
This commit redoes the API and semantics of processFeeUpdate to make
it consistent with the semantics of it's sister functions. This is
part of an ongoing series of commits to remove mutateState arguments
pervasively from the codebase.

As with the previous commit this makes state mutation the caller's
responsibility. This temporarily increases code duplication at the
call-sites, but this will unlock other refactor opportunities.
In this commit we observe that the previous commit reduced the role
of this function to a single assignment statement with numerous newly
irrelevant parameters. This commit makes the choice of inlining it at
the two call-sites within evaluateHTLCView and removing the funciton
definition entirely. This also allows us to drop a huge portion of
newly irrelevant test code.
This commit makes the observation that the nextHeight parameter of
these two functions is no longer used by those funcitons themselves
as a result of extracting the state mutation to the call-sites.
This removes the parameter entirely.
In line with previous commits we are progressively removing the
mutateState argument from this call stack for a more principled
software design approach.

NOTE FOR REVIEWERS:
We take a naive approach to updating the tests here and simply
take the functionality we are removing from evaluateHTLCView and
run it directly after the function in the test suite.

It's possible that we should instead remove this from the test
suite altogether but I opted to take a more conservative approach
with respect to reducing the scope of tests. If you have opinions
here, please make them known.
This commit removes another raw boolean value and replaces it with
a more clear type/name. This will also assist us when we later try
and consolidate the logic of evaluateHTLCView into a single
coherent computation.
This commit moves the collection of updates behind a Dual structure.
This allows us in a later commit to index into it via a ChannelParty
parameter which will simplify the loops in evaluateHTLCView.
This commit simplifies how we compute the commitment fee rate based
off of the live updates. Prior to this commit we processed all of
the FeeUpdate paymentDescriptors of both ChannelParty's. Now we only
process the last FeeUpdate of the OpeningParty
We had four for-loops in evaluateHTLCView that were exact mirror
images of each other. By making use of the new ChannelParty and
Dual facilities introduced in prior commits, we consolidate these
into two for-loops.
This further reduces loop complexity in evaluateHTLCView by using
explicit filter steps rather than loop continue statements.
This commit observes that processAddEntry and processRemoveEntry
are only invoked at a single call-site. Here we inline them at their
call-sites, which will unlock further simplifications of the code
that will allow us to remove pointer mutations in favor of explicit
expression oriented programming.

We also delete the tests associated with these functions, the overall
functionality is implicitly tested by the TestEvaluateHTLCView tests.
@ProofOfKeags ProofOfKeags added refactoring dynamic commitments size/kilo medium, proper context needed, less than 1000 lines labels Sep 12, 2024
@ProofOfKeags ProofOfKeags added this to the v0.19.0 milestone Sep 12, 2024
@ProofOfKeags ProofOfKeags self-assigned this Sep 12, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 12, 2024

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are limited to specific labels.

Labels to auto review (1)
  • llm-review

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.


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?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Here we return the balance deltas from evaluateHTLCView rather than
passing in references to variables that will be modified. It is a
far cleaner and compositional approach which allows readers of this
code to more effectively reason about the code without having to
keep the whole codebase in their head.
Copy link
Collaborator

@carlaKC carlaKC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice refactor, simplifying power of Dual really shines 👌

Comment on lines 2941 to 2945
h := update.addCommitHeights.GetForParty(
whoseCommitChain,
)

return h == 0
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: shorten?

return update.addCommitHeights.GetForParty(whoseCommitChain) == 0

Comment on lines 2968 to 2973
uncommittedUpdates := lntypes.Dual[[]*paymentDescriptor]{
Local: fn.Filter(isUncommitted, view.OurUpdates),
Remote: fn.Filter(isUncommitted, view.TheirUpdates),
}

return newView, uncommittedUpdates, nil
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

WDYT about making UncomittedUpdates(whose ChannelParty) a method on HTLC view?

Saves the need for a closure + second return value here.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like an improvement. I'll tack on a commit to the end.

Comment on lines +2796 to +2798
feeUpdates := fn.Filter(func(u *paymentDescriptor) bool {
return u.EntryType == FeeUpdate
}, openerUpdates)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A Last op in fn would be nice-to-have here: fn.Last(fn.Filter(...)).WhenSome(...)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Definitely. Thank you for giving me a nudge on it. I've been meaning to round out the API there.

lnwallet/channel.go Show resolved Hide resolved
lnwallet/channel.go Show resolved Hide resolved
if deltas.Remote >= 0 {
theirBalance += lnwire.MilliSatoshi(deltas.Remote)
} else {
theirBalance -= lnwire.MilliSatoshi(-1 * deltas.Remote)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure it would be better, but I'd be okay with a struct that expresses increase/decrease for readability:

type balanceDelta struct{
    balanceIncrease lnwire.Millisatoshi
    balanceDecrease lnwire.Millisatoshi
}

Could also have a getBalance(currentBal) method that does the addition + removal so that it's a single line per-party here.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In your imagined change here, would you allow both rows to be non-zero, or is this only a struct because go doesn't know what sum types are?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, allow both to be non-zero when we sum up the deltas and then add/subtract each accordingly.
Just seems easier to not deal with negative numbers when we're around lnwire.Millisatoshi types.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dynamic commitments no-changelog refactoring size/kilo medium, proper context needed, less than 1000 lines
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants