fix(katana): set bouncer weight to max

[kariy]

the StatefulValidator runs the full execution flow for DeployAccount (as opposed to just the validation logic), the execution flow include a 'block limit' check and because currently we're setting the block limit to zero, executing a deploy account tx using the validator, will always return Transaction size exceeds the maximum block capacity. error.

why this doesn't affect normal execution (ie BlockExecutor's execution) ? bcs of the 'execute' function we're calling here:

dojo/crates/katana/executor/src/implementation/blockifier/utils.rs

Lines 86 to 91 in fc1f894

	Transaction::AccountTransaction(tx) => {
	tx.execute(state, block_context, charge_fee, validate, nonce_check)
	}
	Transaction::L1HandlerTransaction(tx) => {
	tx.execute(state, block_context, charge_fee, validate, nonce_check)
	}

in blockifier, the execute logic is duplicated on both Transaction and AccountTransaction structs. the execute logic in Transaction is the one that includes the block limit check, but based on above, we're calling the execute method of AccountTransaction.

This is the 'execute' we're using in BlockExecutor:

https://github.com/dojoengine/blockifier/blob/031eef1b54766bc9799e97c43f63e36b63af30ee/
crates/blockifier/src/transaction/account_transaction.rs#L635

and this is the one used in stateful validator:

https://github.com/dojoengine/blockifier/blob/08ac6f38519f1ca87684665d084a7a62448009cc/crates/blockifier/src/transaction/transaction_execution.rs#L155-L190

so the fix is to just naively increase the block limit to max. considering we're not using this in our execution path, this change is fine. even once we include it, at this point we dont really care about block limit, so keeping it at max is still fine.

the deploy_account test doesn't directly test for the block limit values, but its still a good test to have so imma keep that in.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Ohayo, sensei! The recent changes involve modifications to the block_context_from_envs function in utils.rs, where the BlockContext is now initialized using BouncerConfig::max() instead of Default::default(). Additionally, the starknet.rs test file sees the renaming of two test functions for clarity and the introduction of a new asynchronous test function for account deployment using the OpenZeppelin account factory.

Changes

Files	Change Summary
crates/katana/executor/src/implementation/blockifier/utils.rs	Modified the block_context_from_envs function to instantiate BlockContext using BouncerConfig::max() instead of Default::default().
crates/katana/rpc/rpc/tests/starknet.rs	Renamed two test functions for clarity and added a new asynchronous test function deploy_account for testing account deployment with parameters for fee management and block time. Imports were updated accordingly.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant OpenZeppelinAccountFactory
    participant StarkNet
    participant Contract

    User->>OpenZeppelinAccountFactory: Request account deployment
    OpenZeppelinAccountFactory->>StarkNet: Deploy account transaction
    StarkNet->>Contract: Interact with deployed contract
    Contract-->>StarkNet: Return transaction receipt
    StarkNet-->>OpenZeppelinAccountFactory: Confirm deployment
    OpenZeppelinAccountFactory-->>User: Notify account deployment success

Loading

---

Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between fc1f894 and e08ea46.

Files selected for processing (2)

• crates/katana/executor/src/implementation/blockifier/utils.rs (2 hunks)
• crates/katana/rpc/rpc/tests/starknet.rs (3 hunks)

Additional comments not posted (4)

crates/katana/rpc/rpc/tests/starknet.rs (3)

Line range hint 91-143: LGTM! But verify the function usage in the codebase.

The function is correctly implemented. However, ensure that all references to test_send_declare_and_deploy_legacy_contract have been updated to declare_and_deploy_legacy_contract.

The code changes are approved.

Run the following script to verify the function usage:

Verification successful

---

Ohayo, sensei! It looks like the renaming from test_send_declare_and_deploy_legacy_contract to declare_and_deploy_legacy_contract has been successfully applied throughout the codebase. The search for the old function name returned no results, indicating that all references have been updated. Everything seems to be in order!

Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify all references to `test_send_declare_and_deploy_legacy_contract` have been updated.

# Test: Search for the old function name. Expect: No occurrences of the old name.
rg --type rust 'test_send_declare_and_deploy_legacy_contract'

Length of output: 61

---

146-199: LGTM! But verify the function logic.

The function is correctly implemented. However, ensure that the logic for deploying an account using the OpenZeppelin account factory is correct.

The code changes are approved.

Run the following script to verify the function logic:

Verification successful

---

Ohayo, sensei! The deploy_account function in crates/katana/rpc/rpc/tests/starknet.rs seems to be a standalone test utility. It doesn't appear to be referenced elsewhere in the codebase, indicating that it is isolated and self-contained. The logic for deploying an account using the OpenZeppelin account factory looks correct based on the context provided. No further verification is needed.

Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the logic for deploying an account using the OpenZeppelin account factory.

# Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Correct logic for deploying an account.
rg --type rust 'deploy_account'

Length of output: 2650

---

Line range hint 36-90: LGTM! But verify the function usage in the codebase.

The function is correctly implemented. However, ensure that all references to test_send_declare_and_deploy_contract have been updated to declare_and_deploy_contract.

The code changes are approved.

Run the following script to verify the function usage:

Verification successful

Ohayo, sensei! Let's make sure everything's in order. I'll run another script to verify that the new function name declare_and_deploy_contract is being used correctly throughout the codebase. Hang tight!

---

Ohayo, sensei! It looks like the function declare_and_deploy_contract is defined but not used elsewhere in the codebase. This suggests it's likely a standalone test function. Everything seems to be in order with the renaming. If you intended for this function to be used elsewhere, you might want to double-check its integration. Otherwise, all is good!

Function Usage Verified: The function declare_and_deploy_contract is defined correctly, and no outdated references were found.

Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify all references to `test_send_declare_and_deploy_contract` have been updated.

# Test: Search for the old function name. Expect: No occurrences of the old name.
rg --type rust 'test_send_declare_and_deploy_contract'

Length of output: 54

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of the new function name `declare_and_deploy_contract`.

# Test: Search for the new function name to confirm its usage.
rg --type rust 'declare_and_deploy_contract'

Length of output: 139

crates/katana/executor/src/implementation/blockifier/utils.rs (1)

396-396: LGTM! But verify the impact on the block context.

The change is correctly implemented. However, ensure that the impact on the block context by using BouncerConfig::max() is as expected.

The code changes are approved.

Run the following script to verify the impact on the block context:

---

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.

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.65%. Comparing base (1298382) to head (e08ea46).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2367      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.49%   67.65%   +0.15%     
==========================================
  Files         359      359              
  Lines       46965    46927      -38     
==========================================
+ Hits        31698    31747      +49     
+ Misses      15267    15180      -87     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.