refactor(pulse-scheduler): improve SubscriptionParams validation #2594
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 6 Skipped Deployments
|
jayantk
approved these changes
Apr 21, 2025
* test(pulse-scheduler): add gas benchmark, refactor common helpers into util * doc: test comment * fix: import * fix: overflow, DRY * doc: comment * fix: remove unused constants
Base automatically changed from
tb/pulse-scheduler/permanent-subscriptions
to
main
April 21, 2025 19:38
…b/pulse-scheduler/better-subparams-validation
tejasbadadare
deleted the
tb/pulse-scheduler/better-subparams-validation
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary & Rationale
_validateAndPrepareSubscriptionParamshelper function.heartbeatSecondsanddeviationThresholdBpsare non-zero when those UpdateCriteria are enabled, since those would evaluate to always-true conditions.minPublishTimeis clamped to zero to avoid integer underflow. This should be unlikely sinceblock.timestampwill be a high number, but it's potentially possible in a new network.How has this been tested?