Skip to content

Conversation

@snawaz
Copy link
Contributor

@snawaz snawaz commented Nov 1, 2025

The merge_diff_copy implemented by the previous PR #113 works for accounts which do not shink/expand on ER.

With this PR, merge_diff_copy() handles account shrinking/expansion.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Enhanced validation in diff operations to prevent invalid scenarios and improve data integrity.
    • Improved error handling with more comprehensive edge case detection.
  • New Features

    • Expanded error reporting capabilities for better diagnostics during data operations.
  • Tests

    • Updated test coverage to validate new behavior and edge cases.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 1, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the merge_diff_copy function in src/diff/algorithm.rs to return a mutable slice of unwritten trailing bytes instead of unit type, enforcing that destination length equals diffset.changed_len(). It also adds a new InfallibleError variant to the DlpError enum in src/error.rs.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Diff algorithm signature and logic
src/diff/algorithm.rs
Updated merge_diff_copy function signature to return Result<&'a mut [u8], ProgramError> instead of Result<(), ProgramError>. Added destination length validation against diffset.changed_len(), complex branching for shrink/expand scenarios, and logic to compute and return unwritten trailing bytes. Updated tests with new helper function and test cases for expanded/shrunk account data.
Error enum expansion
src/error.rs
Added new public enum variant InfallibleError (discriminant 18) to DlpError with message "An infallible error is encountered possibly due to logic error".

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

  • Focus areas requiring extra attention:
    • Complex branching logic in merge_diff_copy for handling destination length validation and shrink/expand scenarios
    • Correctness of unwritten trailing byte calculation and slice return semantics
    • Test coverage for edge cases in expanded/shrunk account data scenarios, particularly the TODO note regarding future optimization

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • GabrielePicco

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Description check ⚠️ Warning The pull request description is minimal and lacks comprehensive detail compared to the template structure. While it does explain that the previous PR implemented merge_diff_copy for non-resizing accounts and this PR extends it to handle shrinking/expansion, the description is missing critical sections from the template including Problem, Solution, Before & After Screenshots, Deploy Notes, and the metadata table (Status, Type, Core Change, Issue). The description provides only a brief context without sufficient detail about the implementation approach or potential impacts. Expand the pull request description to follow the provided template structure more closely. Add a clear Problem statement explaining why account shrinking/expansion support was needed, a detailed Solution section describing the implementation approach, and fill out the metadata table with the appropriate Status, Type, and Core Change indicators. Include any relevant deploy notes or breaking changes, especially since the function signature was modified (now returns Result<&mut [u8], ProgramError> instead of Result<(), ProgramError>).
✅ Passed checks (1 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The pull request title 'feat: Handle account shrinking/expansion in merge_diff_copy' accurately and clearly summarizes the main change in the changeset. It is specific about what was modified (account shrinking/expansion handling) and in which component (merge_diff_copy), making it immediately understandable to reviewers scanning the git history. The title is concise and avoids unnecessary noise while conveying the primary change.
✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch snawaz/handle-resize

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e8d0393 and a3f7eaa.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/diff/algorithm.rs (3 hunks)
  • src/error.rs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code graph analysis (1)
src/diff/algorithm.rs (1)
src/diff/types.rs (2)
  • changed_len (121-123)
  • try_new (45-104)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/diff/algorithm.rs (1)

256-342: Comprehensive resize handling looks solid

Walked the shrink/expand paths and the trailing-slice return value fits the new zero-initialized contract. Tests cover the new behaviors nicely.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Contributor Author

snawaz commented Nov 1, 2025

@snawaz snawaz force-pushed the snawaz/handle-resize branch 3 times, most recently from 195ce40 to 82d91aa Compare November 1, 2025 11:49
@snawaz snawaz force-pushed the snawaz/handle-resize branch from 82d91aa to c6c1898 Compare November 1, 2025 13:58
@snawaz snawaz requested a review from GabrielePicco November 3, 2025 09:54
@snawaz snawaz marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2025 09:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants