fix(x/auth): fix slice init length #22006
Conversation
huochexizhan
requested review from
facundomedica,
testinginprod,
aaronc and
a team
as code owners
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes involve modifying the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant P as Periods
participant S as String Method
participant R as Return Value
P->>S: Call String()
S->>S: Initialize periodsListString
S->>P: Iterate over each Period
P->>S: Call Period.String()
S->>R: Build string representation
R-->>P: Return final string
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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
x/auth/vesting/types/period.go (2)
Line range hint
44-52: Consider using strings.Builder for better performanceWhile the current implementation is correct, using a
strings.Builderinstead of slice concatenation could potentially improve performance, especially for larger slices. Here's a suggested refactoring:func (p Periods) String() string { var builder strings.Builder builder.WriteString("Vesting Periods:\n\t") for i, period := range p { if i > 0 { builder.WriteString(", ") } builder.WriteString(period.String()) } return builder.String() }This approach eliminates the need for the intermediate slice and may be more efficient for larger
Periodsslices.
43-43: Enhance the method comment for better documentationThe current comment "String implements the fmt.Stringer interface" is correct but could be more descriptive. Consider expanding it to provide more context about what the method does.
Here's a suggested improvement:
// String implements the fmt.Stringer interface. // It returns a formatted string representation of all vesting periods, // with each period's details separated by commas. func (p Periods) String() string {This enhanced comment provides more information about the method's behavior and output format.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- x/auth/vesting/types/period.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
x/auth/vesting/types/period.go (1)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
x/auth/vesting/types/period.go (2)
45-45: Approved: Efficient slice initializationThe change from
make([]string, len(p))tomake([]string, 0, len(p))is a good improvement. It initializes the slice with zero length but with the correct capacity, which is more efficient. This approach avoids allocating memory for elements that would be immediately overwritten in the subsequent loop.This modification aligns well with the Uber Golang style guide's recommendations for slice initialization and improves memory usage without changing the method's functionality.
Line range hint
1-52: Summary of reviewThe main change in this file (efficient slice initialization) is approved and improves memory usage. The rest of the file is well-structured and follows Go conventions. Two minor suggestions were made for potential further improvements:
- Using
strings.Builderin theStringmethod for potentially better performance.- Enhancing the comment for the
Stringmethod to provide more context.Overall, the changes and the existing code are of good quality and align well with Go best practices.
julienrbrt
changed the title
julienrbrt
added
the
backport/v0.52.x
(cherry picked from commit 8833670)
|
This code needs a test as the regression can be glaring and even if this code would be reverted, it wouldn't be caught. |
|
I've mailed out PR #22059 |
This change adds a test to lock-in behavior and prevent regressions that let the bugs such as was fixed in PR cosmos#22006. This test ensures that if there is any regression that it'll be caught.
Description
The intention here should be to initialize a slice with a capacity of len(p) rather than initializing the length of this slice.
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.
Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.
I have...
Summary by CodeRabbit
Stringmethod for vesting periods, enhancing performance without altering the output format.