✅ Test: anvil_reset #1475
✅ Test: anvil_reset #1475
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 1 Skipped Deployment
|
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: b535896 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 10 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
|
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. Join @roninjin10 and the rest of your teammates on |
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces modifications to the type declarations of JSON-RPC request types in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
.changeset/nice-actors-sort.md (1)
5-5: Consider enhancing the description for clarity.While the current description is good, it could be slightly improved for better clarity.
Consider revising the description as follows:
-Fixed bug where input params arrays for some json rpc requests were not readonly. This would cause typescript to error if a readonly array was used rather than a normal one +Fixed a bug where input parameter arrays for some JSON RPC requests were not declared as readonly. This caused TypeScript to throw errors when a readonly array was used instead of a mutable one, improving type safety and consistency.This revision:
- Clarifies that the issue was with the declaration, not the implementation.
- Capitalizes "JSON RPC" for consistency.
- Uses more precise language ("throw errors" instead of "error").
- Adds a note about the improvement in type safety and consistency.
packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.spec.ts (3)
11-63: LGTM! Comprehensive test case for blockchain reset.This test case thoroughly checks the reset functionality for both the blockchain and state manager. It covers essential aspects such as block removal and state clearing.
Consider adding an assertion to verify that the blockchain length is 1 (only genesis block) after reset:
expect(await vm.blockchain.getLatestBlock()).toEqual(await vm.blockchain.getBlock(0n))This would provide an additional check to ensure no other blocks remain in the chain.
65-101: LGTM! Well-structured test for forked blockchain reset.This test case effectively verifies the reset functionality for a forked blockchain scenario. It ensures that the reset operation doesn't affect the forked state, which is a crucial aspect of the functionality.
To enhance the test coverage, consider adding an assertion to verify that any changes made to the forked blockchain (e.g., new blocks or state changes) are reverted after the reset. For example:
// Add a new block before reset await mineHandler(node)() // Perform reset (existing code) // Verify that the new block is removed after reset const latestBlock = await node.getVm().then((vm) => vm.blockchain.getLatestBlock()) expect(latestBlock.header.number).toEqual(forkedBlock.header.number)This addition would further confirm that the reset truly reverts all changes made to the forked blockchain.
1-10: LGTM! Well-structured test file with appropriate imports.The test file is well-organized and follows good testing practices. The use of Vitest and the overall structure are appropriate for the functionality being tested.
Consider grouping related imports for better readability. For example:
// Tevm imports import { createAddress } from '@tevm/address' import { Block } from '@tevm/block' import { createTevmNode } from '@tevm/node' import { EthjsAccount } from '@tevm/utils' // Test utilities import { transports } from '@tevm/test-utils' import { describe, expect, it } from 'vitest' // Local imports import { mineHandler } from '../Mine/mineHandler.js' import { anvilResetJsonRpcProcedure } from './anvilResetProcedure.js'This grouping can make it easier to understand the different types of dependencies being used in the test file.
packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilJsonRpcRequest.ts (3)
102-105: LGTM: Enhanced type safety and readability forAnvilDumpStateJsonRpcRequestThe changes to this type definition are positive:
- Adding
readonlyto the parameter tuple improves type safety.- The multi-line format enhances readability for this longer type definition.
These modifications align with TypeScript best practices and improve code maintainability.
Note: There's a TODO comment above this type definition suggesting potential future changes. Consider creating an issue to track this TODO item for future development.
Consider creating an issue to track the TODO item: "make this the same as our dump state".
111-114: LGTM: Consistent improvement in type safety and readability forAnvilLoadStateJsonRpcRequestThe changes to this type definition are positive and consistent with other modifications in the file:
- Adding
readonlyto the parameter tuple enhances type safety.- The multi-line format improves readability for this longer type definition.
These modifications contribute to a more maintainable and safer codebase.
Note: There's a TODO comment above this type definition suggesting potential future changes. Consider creating an issue to track this TODO item for future development.
Consider creating an issue to track the TODO item: "make this the same as our load state".
Line range hint
1-131: Overall: Excellent improvements in type safety and readabilityThe changes in this file represent a systematic enhancement of type safety and code quality:
- Consistent use of
readonlytuples across all type definitions prevents accidental modifications of parameter tuples.- Multi-line formats for longer type definitions improve readability.
- Retention of parameter names in type definitions serves as self-documentation.
These modifications collectively contribute to a more robust, maintainable, and safer codebase.
Recommendations for follow-up actions:
- Create issues to track the TODO items for
AnvilDumpStateJsonRpcRequestandAnvilLoadStateJsonRpcRequest.- Verify that the removal of parameters in
AnvilResetJsonRpcRequestdoesn't break existing code.- Consider applying similar improvements to other files in the project for consistency.
To maintain consistency across the project, consider creating a linting rule or code style guide that enforces the use of
readonlytuples for JSON-RPC request parameters. This will help ensure that future additions to the codebase follow the same pattern of type safety.packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (2)
24-27: ImplementtxPool.reset()method to streamline transaction pool resetThe code includes a TODO comment about adding a
txPool.reset()method. Implementing this method would simplify the transaction pool reset process and enhance code maintainability.Would you like assistance in implementing the
txPool.reset()method or opening a GitHub issue to track this task?
43-45: ImplementreceiptManager.reset()method for cleaner reset logicThe code contains a TODO comment suggesting the addition of a
receiptManager.reset()method. Implementing this method would make resetting the receipt manager more straightforward and improve code readability.Would you like assistance in implementing the
receiptManager.reset()method or opening a GitHub issue to track this task?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- .changeset/nice-actors-sort.md (1 hunks)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilJsonRpcRequest.ts (4 hunks)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (1 hunks)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (11)
.changeset/nice-actors-sort.md (1)
1-5: LGTM! Changeset correctly documents the bug fix.The changeset accurately describes a patch update for the "@tevm/actions" package, addressing a bug related to readonly arrays in JSON RPC request input parameters. This change improves TypeScript type safety and resolves potential errors when using readonly arrays.
packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.spec.ts (1)
1-101: Overall, excellent test coverage for anvilResetJsonRpcProcedure.This test file provides comprehensive coverage for the
anvilResetJsonRpcProcedure, addressing both standard and forked blockchain scenarios. The tests are well-structured, use appropriate assertions, and effectively verify the reset functionality.Key strengths:
- Thorough testing of blockchain and state manager reset.
- Verification of forked blockchain reset behavior.
- Clear and readable test cases.
The minor suggestions provided earlier will further enhance the already robust test suite. Great job on writing these tests!
packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilJsonRpcRequest.ts (9)
16-16: LGTM: Improved type safety forAnvilImpersonateAccountJsonRpcRequestThe addition of
readonlyto the parameter tuple enhances type safety by preventing accidental modifications. This change aligns with TypeScript best practices for immutable data structures.
21-24: LGTM: Enhanced type safety and readability forAnvilStopImpersonatingAccountJsonRpcRequestThe changes to this type definition are positive:
- Adding
readonlyto the parameter tuple improves type safety.- The multi-line format enhances readability for this longer type definition.
These modifications align with TypeScript best practices and improve code maintainability.
44-44: LGTM: Consistent improvement in type safety forAnvilSetCoinbaseJsonRpcRequestThe addition of
readonlyto the parameter tuple enhances type safety and maintains consistency with other type definitions in this file. This change aligns with the overall pattern of improvements being made.
49-49: LGTM: Improved type safety and maintained clarity forAnvilMineJsonRpcRequestThe changes to this type definition are beneficial:
- Adding
readonlyto the parameter tuple enhances type safety.- Retaining the parameter names (
blockCountandinterval) in the type definition maintains clarity and serves as self-documentation.This approach balances type safety with code readability, which is excellent for maintainability.
67-70: LGTM: Enhanced type safety and readability forAnvilSetBalanceJsonRpcRequestThe changes to this type definition are excellent:
- Adding
readonlyto the parameter tuple improves type safety.- The multi-line format enhances readability.
- Retaining parameter names (
addressandbalance) serves as self-documentation.These modifications collectively improve both the safety and maintainability of the code.
75-78: LGTM: Consistent improvement in type safety and readability forAnvilSetCodeJsonRpcRequestThe changes to this type definition are positive and consistent with other modifications in the file:
- Adding
readonlyto the parameter tuple enhances type safety.- The multi-line format improves readability.
- Retaining parameter names (
accountanddeployedBytecode) maintains clarity and serves as self-documentation.This consistent approach across type definitions contributes to a more maintainable and safer codebase.
83-83: LGTM: Improved type safety and clarity forAnvilSetNonceJsonRpcRequestThe modification to this type definition aligns well with the overall improvements in the file:
- Adding
readonlyto the parameter tuple enhances type safety.- Retaining parameter names (
addressandnonce) maintains clarity and serves as self-documentation.This change contributes to a more robust and readable codebase.
96-96: LGTM: Consistent improvement in type safety forAnvilSetChainIdJsonRpcRequestThe addition of
readonlyto the parameter tuple enhances type safety and maintains consistency with other type definitions in this file. This change contributes to the overall improvement in code robustness.
54-54: Verify impact of parameter removal inAnvilResetJsonRpcRequestThe change to an empty
readonly []tuple forAnvilResetJsonRpcRequestparameters improves type safety. However, this modification suggests that the request no longer accepts any parameters, which is a significant change.Please ensure that:
- This change is intentional and aligns with the
anvil_resetmethod's current specification.- Any existing code using
AnvilResetJsonRpcRequesthas been updated to reflect this change.To verify the impact, you can run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Verified:
AnvilResetJsonRpcRequestParameter Removal is SafeThe modification to use an empty
readonly []tuple forAnvilResetJsonRpcRequesthas been consistently applied across the codebase. All usages ofanvil_resetnow correctly use empty parameters, ensuring type safety without impacting existing functionality.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of AnvilResetJsonRpcRequest or anvil_reset rg --type typescript "AnvilResetJsonRpcRequest|anvil_reset" -C 3Length of output: 101
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of AnvilResetJsonRpcRequest or anvil_reset in .ts and .tsx files rg "AnvilResetJsonRpcRequest|anvil_reset" --glob "*.ts" --glob "*.tsx" -C 3Length of output: 10102
| vm.stateManager = /** @type {any}*/ (newStateManager) | ||
| vm.evm.stateManager = /** @type {any}*/ (newStateManager) | ||
| vm.blockchain = newBlockchain | ||
| vm.evm.blockchain = newBlockchain |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid casting to any to maintain type safety
The assignments to vm.stateManager, vm.evm.stateManager, vm.blockchain, and vm.evm.blockchain use casting to any. This reduces type safety and could lead to runtime errors. Consider updating the type definitions to eliminate the need for casting to any.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (2)
1-14: LGTM! Consider enhancing the JSDoc.The changes to the imports, function signature, and JSDoc are consistent and appropriate. The shift from
clienttonodeterminology is noted.Consider adding a brief description of what
anvil_resetdoes in the JSDoc, e.g.:/** * Request handler for anvil_reset JSON-RPC requests. * Resets the node's state, including filters, impersonated accounts, transaction pool, and blockchain state. * If the node is forked, anvil_reset will reset to the forked block. * ... */
24-27: LGTM! Consider creating an issue for the TODO.The implementation of the transaction pool reset is correct and thorough. It effectively clears all transactions from the pool.
Regarding the TODO comment, would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of a
txPool.reset()method? This could potentially improve the efficiency of the reset process in the future.packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilParams.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-4: Address TODO comments and update documentationThere are several TODO comments in the file that need attention:
At the beginning of the file, there's a comment indicating that the JSDoc comments haven't been updated. It's important to ensure that all documentation is accurate and up-to-date.
There are TODO comments related to
AnvilDumpStateParamsandAnvilLoadStateParams, suggesting potential future changes or improvements.Please address these TODO items:
- Review and update all JSDoc comments in the file to ensure they accurately reflect the current implementation.
- Consider implementing the suggested changes for
AnvilDumpStateParamsandAnvilLoadStateParams, or add more specific TODO comments with action items if the changes are planned for a future update.To help track these tasks, would you like me to create GitHub issues for addressing these TODO comments?
Also applies to: 137-139, 143-145
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilJsonRpcRequest.ts (4 hunks)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilParams.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilJsonRpcRequest.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (5)
packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (4)
17-19: LGTM! Effective implementation of filter reset.The new logic to reset filters is a valuable addition to the reset procedure. It ensures that all existing filters are removed, which is crucial for a complete reset of the node's state.
21-22: LGTM! Proper reset of impersonated account.The addition of logic to reset the impersonated account is a good improvement. Setting it to
undefinedeffectively clears any previously impersonated account.
29-39: Improved VM state and blockchain reset logic.The updated logic for resetting the state manager and blockchain is more comprehensive and handles the forked block case correctly. The use of shallow copies is an efficient approach.
Regarding the use of
anycasts, I agree with the previous review comment. These casts reduce type safety and could lead to runtime errors. Consider updating the type definitions to eliminate the need for casting toany.
Line range hint
47-53: LGTM! Consistent return structure.The return statement correctly maintains the expected JSON-RPC response format, including the method, JSON-RPC version, and optional request ID.
packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilParams.ts (1)
60-60: Verify the implications of simplifying AnvilResetParamsThe
AnvilResetParamstype has been significantly simplified from a complex object with fork-related properties to an empty object. While this simplification could improve API usability, it also introduces potential breaking changes.Please ensure the following:
- The implementation of
anvil_resethas been updated to reflect this change and no longer expects fork-related parameters.- All relevant documentation has been updated to reflect the new parameter structure.
- Existing test cases have been modified to align with this change.
- Any code relying on the previous
AnvilResetParamsstructure has been refactored.To verify the usage and impact of this change, run the following script:
This script will help identify areas of the codebase that might be affected by this change and need attention.
| // reset receipts manager | ||
| const receiptManager = await node.getReceiptsManager() /** @type {any}*/ /** @type {any}*/ | ||
| // TODO we should add a receiptManager.reset() method | ||
| receiptManager.mapDb = createMapDb({ cache: new Map() }) /** @type {any}*/ /** @type {any}*/ | ||
| receiptManager.chain = newBlockchain |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! Consider improvements for receipts manager reset.
The addition of receipts manager reset logic is a valuable improvement to the overall reset procedure. It ensures that the receipts are properly cleared and realigned with the new blockchain state.
Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of a receiptManager.reset() method? This could potentially simplify and improve the efficiency of the reset process in the future.
The use of multiple any casts in this section reduces type safety. Consider updating the type definitions for the receipt manager to eliminate the need for these casts. This will improve the overall type safety of the codebase.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (1)
24-27: LGTM! Effective transaction pool reset with room for improvement.The new transaction pool reset logic is a valuable addition:
- It retrieves transactions sorted by price and nonce.
- It then removes each transaction from the pool.
This approach effectively clears the transaction pool. However, there's room for improvement:
Consider implementing a
txPool.reset()method as suggested in the TODO comment. This could potentially simplify and improve the efficiency of the reset process.Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of a
txPool.reset()method?packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilParams.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-160: Summary of changes and potential impactThe modifications to this file are part of a larger refactoring effort focused on the reset functionality:
- The import statement has been updated to remove
BlockTag.AnvilResetParamshas been simplified to an empty object type.These changes suggest a significant alteration in how the reset operation is handled. While the changes themselves are straightforward and appear correct, they may have broader implications:
- Any code relying on the previous
AnvilResetParamsstructure will need to be updated.- The removal of forking parameters from
AnvilResetParamsmight indicate changes in how forking is managed during reset operations.Consider the following recommendations:
- Update all relevant documentation to reflect these changes.
- Review and update any tests that involve
AnvilResetParams.- Ensure that the new reset behavior is thoroughly tested and meets all requirements.
- If this is part of a breaking change, make sure it's properly communicated in release notes or changelogs.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilParams.ts (2 hunks)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (8)
packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (6)
1-15: LGTM! Improved imports and function signature.The changes in this section enhance clarity and prepare for the new functionality:
- The new import
createMapDbaligns with the receipts manager reset logic added later.- Renaming the parameter from
clienttonodeis more descriptive and consistent with the function's purpose.- The JSDoc has been correctly updated to reflect these changes.
These modifications improve code readability and maintainability.
17-19: LGTM! Effective filter reset implementation.The new logic for resetting filters is a valuable addition to the reset procedure:
- It retrieves all filters from the node.
- It then iterates through each filter and removes it.
This ensures that no stale filters remain after the reset, which is crucial for maintaining consistency in the node's state.
21-22: LGTM! Clear impersonated account reset.The addition of impersonated account reset logic is a good improvement:
- It sets the impersonated account to
undefined.- This ensures that no impersonated account state persists after the reset.
This change contributes to a more comprehensive reset procedure.
29-39: LGTM! Comprehensive state and blockchain reset, but type safety concerns persist.The state manager and blockchain reset logic is thorough and well-implemented:
- New instances of the state manager and blockchain are created.
- The forked block is preserved if it exists.
- The VM's references are updated to use the new instances.
However, a previously identified issue remains:
The assignments to
vm.stateManager,vm.evm.stateManager,vm.blockchain, andvm.evm.blockchainstill use casting toany. This reduces type safety and could lead to runtime errors. Consider updating the type definitions to eliminate the need for casting toany.
41-47: LGTM! Valuable addition of receipts manager reset with areas for improvement.The addition of receipts manager reset logic is a significant improvement:
- A new map database is created for the receipts manager.
- The blockchain reference in the receipts manager is updated.
These changes ensure that the receipts are properly cleared and realigned with the new blockchain state. However, there are areas for improvement:
Consider implementing a
receiptManager.reset()method as suggested in the TODO comment. This could potentially simplify and improve the efficiency of the reset process.Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of a
receiptManager.reset()method?The use of multiple
anycasts in this section reduces type safety. Consider updating the type definitions for the receipt manager to eliminate the need for these casts. This will improve the overall type safety of the codebase.
Line range hint
49-55: LGTM! Consistent return statement structure.The return statement maintains the existing structure, which is appropriate:
- It includes the
result,method, andjsonrpcfields.- It conditionally includes the
idfield if present in the request.This consistency in the return structure is good for maintaining compatibility with existing code that may depend on this format.
packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilParams.ts (2)
60-60: Approve simplification ofAnvilResetParams, but suggest documentation update and impact verification.The simplification of
AnvilResetParamsto an empty object type is a significant change that aligns with the removal ofBlockTagfrom the imports. This change is approved, but please consider the following actions:
- Update the documentation comment above this type definition to reflect the new empty parameter structure.
- Verify that this change doesn't break any existing code that might be expecting the previous structure.
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usages of AnvilResetParams in the codebase # Test: Search for AnvilResetParams usage rg --type typescript 'AnvilResetParams' packages/actions/src # The results will show where AnvilResetParams is used, allowing for manual verification of compatibility with the new structure.Please review the results of this script to ensure that all usages of
AnvilResetParamsare compatible with the new empty object structure.
4-4: Verify the removal ofBlockTagimport.The
BlockTagtype has been removed from the import statement. This change appears to be consistent with the simplification ofAnvilResetParams. However, to ensure this doesn't introduce any issues:If the script returns no results, the removal is correct. Otherwise, please review the usage of
BlockTagin the file.✅ Verification successful
Removal of
BlockTagimport verified successfully.The
BlockTagtype has been successfully removed from the import statement inAnvilParams.tswith no remaining usages in the file.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if BlockTag is still used in the file # Test: Search for any remaining usage of BlockTag rg --type typescript 'BlockTag' packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilParams.ts # If the above command returns no results, it confirms that BlockTag is no longer used in this file.Length of output: 95
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if BlockTag is still used in the file # Test: Search for any remaining usage of BlockTag without specifying file type rg 'BlockTag' packages/actions/src/anvil/AnvilParams.ts # If the above command returns no results, it confirms that BlockTag is no longer used in this file.Length of output: 55
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that BlockTag is not used anywhere in the codebase # Test: Search for any usage of BlockTag across all TypeScript files rg 'BlockTag' --type tsLength of output: 48790
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (2)
1-15: LGTM! Consider enhancing the JSDoc.The import statements and function signature changes look good. The shift from
clienttonodein the parameter name is consistent with the JSDoc update.Consider adding a brief explanation in the JSDoc about what
anvil_resetdoes, especially mentioning the reset of filters, impersonated accounts, and the transaction pool. This would provide more context to developers using this function.
24-27: LGTM! Consider future optimization for transaction pool reset.The new logic for resetting the transaction pool is functional. It correctly retrieves and removes all transactions from the pool.
For future optimization, consider implementing a
txPool.reset()method as suggested in the TODO comment. This could potentially be more efficient, especially for large transaction pools. Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track this enhancement?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (5)
packages/actions/src/anvil/anvilResetProcedure.js (5)
17-19: LGTM! Effective filter reset implementation.The new logic for resetting filters is well-implemented. It correctly retrieves all filters and removes them, ensuring a clean slate after the reset operation.
21-22: LGTM! Proper reset of impersonated account.The new logic for resetting the impersonated account is correct. Setting it to
undefinedensures that no account impersonation persists after the reset operation.
29-39: LGTM! Consider improving type safety.The VM state and blockchain reset logic is well-implemented. It correctly creates new instances and handles the forked block if present.
As mentioned in a previous review, the use of
anytype casting reduces type safety. Consider updating the type definitions to eliminate the need for these casts, improving overall type safety.To ensure the reset logic is comprehensive, let's verify if there are any other VM properties that might need resetting:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other VM properties that might need resetting rg --type js 'vm\.' packages/actions/src/anvil
41-48: LGTM! Consider improvements for receipts manager reset.The addition of receipts manager reset logic is a valuable improvement to the overall reset procedure. It ensures that the receipts are properly cleared and realigned with the new blockchain state.
As mentioned in a previous review, the use of
anytype casting reduces type safety. Consider updating the type definitions for the receipt manager to eliminate the need for these casts, improving overall type safety.Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of a
receiptManager.reset()method? This could potentially simplify and improve the efficiency of the reset process in the future.
Line range hint
50-55: LGTM! Return statement remains consistent.The return statement is unchanged and continues to provide the correct structure for a JSON-RPC response, including the method name, JSON-RPC version, and optional request ID.
Description
Concise description of proposed changes
Testing
Explain the quality checks that have been done on the code changes
Additional Information
Your ENS/address:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests