[feat] Create an evolution PoC model #97
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request introduce a new module named Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (6)
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}
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
jsanchez556
force-pushed
the
feat-evolution_model
branch
from
33cfe60 to
b1f5765
Compare
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@jsanchez556 can you make sure that |
|
Hi @jsanchez556 send an image of the sozo build and sozo test passing as Daniel said and I left a small comment. Also, apply the improvement to fix |
Screencast.from.2024-11-27.08-10-11.mp4 |
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/models/evolution.cairo (2)
3-12: LGTM! Consider adding field validation.The struct definition looks good with appropriate derive macros and model annotation. The field types and visibility are correct, and using
base_beast_idas the key field is a good choice.Consider adding field validation to ensure:
level_requirementandrequired_battlesare non-zeroevolved_beast_idis different frombase_beast_id
44-45: Address the TODO comment about randomization.The current implementation uses a simple multiplication which is predictable. This needs to be replaced with a proper randomization mechanism.
Would you like help implementing a secure random number generation system for evolved beast IDs? This could involve:
- Using block information or other entropy sources
- Implementing a proper pseudo-random number generator
- Adding collision detection
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json(1 hunks)manifests/dev/base/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.toml(1 hunks)src/models/evolution.cairo(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
manifests/dev/base/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.toml (2)
8-31: LGTM! Member definitions align with requirements
The model structure perfectly matches the PR objectives with all required fields:
base_beast_idas the primary keyevolved_beast_idfor the target evolutionlevel_requirementfor minimum level checkrequired_battlesfor battle count requirementrequired_itemas an optional evolution item
The type choices and key configurations are appropriate for their intended purposes.
1-6: Verify the class hash configuration
The class_hash and original_class_hash are identical. While this is valid for a new model, ensure this is intentional and verify that the hash is correctly generated.
✅ Verification successful
Class hash configuration is valid
The class hash configuration is correct. The ABI file exists and contains the proper model definition for the Evolution model. The identical class_hash and original_class_hash values are appropriate for this new model, as it represents the initial deployment where both hashes should match. The ABI file correctly defines the Evolution model structure with all required fields including level_requirement, required_battles, and required_item.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the class hash exists in the ABI file
# and check for any other references to ensure consistency
# Check if the ABI file exists and contains the class hash
jq -r . "manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json" 2>/dev/null | grep -q "0x2d40a7cd64e9c72b855b55fddaa9de2d4c80aadce9f8a4276bf3d859cb18a9c" || echo "Class hash not found in ABI"
Length of output: 216
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify if the ABI file exists and check its content
ls -l manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json
# If file exists, let's see its content
cat manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json 2>/dev/null
# Let's also check if there are any other files referencing this hash
rg "0x2d40a7cd64e9c72b855b55fddaa9de2d4c80aadce9f8a4276bf3d859cb18a9c" --type toml
Length of output: 9633
src/models/evolution.cairo (2)
39-50:
Critical: Improve evolved_beast_id generation and add event emission.
Several issues need attention in the evolve method:
- The evolved_beast_id calculation is too simplistic and predictable
- No validation that the generated ID doesn't conflict with existing beasts
- No events are emitted for tracking evolution attempts
The current implementation needs significant improvements:
- Replace the simple multiplication with a more robust ID generation system
- Add collision detection
- Emit events for successful/failed evolutions
Note: This duplicates some concerns from previous reviews, but the implementation still needs improvement.
14-24: Verify constant values against game design requirements.
The constants are well-documented, but there are a few considerations:
- Remove the empty line after the module-level documentation (line 16)
- These magic numbers (10, 5, 1001) should be validated against game design requirements
Let's check if these values are documented in any design docs:
manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json (4)
370-394: LGTM: Evolution struct matches requirements
The struct definition correctly implements all required fields with appropriate types, including the optional required_item field.
396-412:
Add missing core evolution functions to interface
The interface is still missing the essential functions specified in the PR objectives:
can_evolve: To check evolution eligibilityevolve: To execute the evolution process
413-418:
Add essential event variants for evolution tracking
The Event enum is still empty and needs variants for tracking evolution state changes.
371-393: Consider adding validation constraints for numeric fields
The Evolution model would benefit from additional constraints:
level_requirement: Should have a reasonable maximum levelrequired_battles: Should have a reasonable maximum valuebase_beast_idandevolved_beast_id: Should be different values
This will prevent invalid evolution rules from being created.
Let's check for any existing validation constraints in the codebase:
jsanchez556
force-pushed
the
feat-evolution_model
branch
from
08dfb19 to
f000b8b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
src/models/evolution.cairo (2)
14-24: Fix documentation formatting.Remove the empty line after the module documentation comment to maintain proper documentation flow.
mod rules { /// Minimum rules for beast evolution - /// Minimum level required before evolution is possible const LEVEL_REQUIREMENT: u32 = 10;
44-45: TODO: Implement secure random ID generation.The current implementation uses a simple multiplication which is predictable and could lead to security issues.
Would you like me to create an issue to track the implementation of a secure random ID generation system?
manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json (1)
364-368: Fix implementation naming conventionThe implementation name
evolutionImplshould follow PascalCase convention to match other types:- "name": "evolutionImpl", + "name": "EvolutionImpl",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.tool-versions(1 hunks)manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json(1 hunks)manifests/dev/base/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.toml(1 hunks)src/lib.cairo(1 hunks)src/models/evolution.cairo(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- .tool-versions
- manifests/dev/base/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.toml
- src/lib.cairo
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/models/evolution.cairo (3)
3-12: LGTM! Well-structured model definition.
The Evolution struct is well-defined with appropriate field types and derives. Good choice using base_beast_id as the key field.
28-37: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider additional validation in can_evolve.
The evolution eligibility check should also validate that the beast hasn't already evolved.
fn can_evolve(self: Evolution) -> bool {
+ if self.evolved_beast_id != 0 {
+ return false; // Already evolved
+ }
let is_valid_item: bool = match self.required_item {Likely invalid or redundant comment.
39-50:
Critical: Improve evolved_beast_id generation and add event emission.
Several improvements needed:
- Current ID generation is predictable and could lead to collisions
- No events are emitted for tracking evolution attempts
- No validation that the generated ID is unique
Consider implementing:
- A secure random number generation system
- A registry to track used beast IDs
- Event emission for evolution attempts
fn evolve(ref self: Evolution) -> Result<u32, felt252> {
assert(self.base_beast_id != 0, 'Invalid base beast');
+ assert(self.evolved_beast_id == 0, 'Already evolved');
match self.can_evolve() {
true => {
- // TODO: investigate how can we make It random
- self.evolved_beast_id = self.base_beast_id * 10_u32;
+ // TODO: Implement secure random ID generation
+ let new_id = generate_unique_beast_id();
+ assert(!beast_id_exists(new_id), 'ID collision');
+ self.evolved_beast_id = new_id;
+ self.emit(EvolutionSuccess {
+ base_beast_id: self.base_beast_id,
+ evolved_beast_id: self.evolved_beast_id
+ });
Result::Ok(self.evolved_beast_id)
},
- false => Result::Err('Evolution requirements not met'),
+ false => {
+ self.emit(EvolutionFailure {
+ base_beast_id: self.base_beast_id,
+ reason: 'Requirements not met'
+ });
+ Result::Err('Evolution requirements not met')
+ },
}Would you like me to help create a separate issue to track the implementation of secure ID generation?
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json (4)
396-412: Core evolution functions are missing from interface
The interface is missing the essential functions specified in the PR objectives:
can_evolve: To check evolution eligibilityevolve: To execute the evolution process
413-418: Event variants for evolution tracking are missing
The Event enum should include variants to track evolution-related state changes.
1-419: Define evolution rules as constants
The PR objectives specify that evolution rules should be defined as constants, but no constants or rules are defined in the ABI. Consider adding a Rules struct or enum to define evolution conditions.
370-394: Consider adding field validation constraints
While the Evolution struct fields are correctly typed, consider adding validation constraints to ensure:
level_requirementandrequired_battlesare greater than 0base_beast_id!=evolved_beast_id
jsanchez556
force-pushed
the
feat-evolution_model
branch
from
f000b8b to
5161b9a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/models/evolution.cairo (1)
14-24: Enhance rules documentation with validation context.While the documentation is good, it could be more specific about:
- Why these specific values were chosen
- What are the valid ranges for these constants
- Impact of these requirements on game balance
Also, remove the empty line at line 16 to maintain documentation flow.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.tool-versions(1 hunks)manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json(1 hunks)manifests/dev/base/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.toml(1 hunks)src/lib.cairo(1 hunks)src/models/evolution.cairo(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- src/lib.cairo
- .tool-versions
- manifests/dev/base/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.toml
- manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/models/evolution.cairo (4)
3-12: LGTM! Well-structured model definition.
The Evolution struct is well-designed with appropriate field types and good use of Option for the optional required_item. Using base_beast_id as the key field is the correct choice.
39-50:
Critical: Improve evolved_beast_id generation and add event tracking.
Several improvements needed:
- The current evolution ID calculation (
base_beast_id * 10) is too predictable - No validation that the generated ID is within valid range
- No event emission for tracking evolutions
fn evolve(ref self: Evolution) -> Result<u32, felt252> {
assert(self.base_beast_id != 0, 'Invalid base beast');
match self.can_evolve() {
true => {
- // TODO: investigate how can we make It random
- self.evolved_beast_id = self.base_beast_id * 10_u32;
+ // Generate evolved_beast_id using a more sophisticated approach
+ let new_id = generate_evolved_id(self.base_beast_id)?;
+ assert(is_valid_evolved_id(new_id), 'Invalid evolved ID');
+ self.evolved_beast_id = new_id;
+
+ // Emit evolution event
+ self.emit(EvolutionSuccess {
+ base_beast_id: self.base_beast_id,
+ evolved_beast_id: self.evolved_beast_id
+ });
Result::Ok(self.evolved_beast_id)
},
- false => Result::Err('Evolution requirements not met'),
+ false => {
+ // Emit failure event
+ self.emit(EvolutionFailure {
+ base_beast_id: self.base_beast_id,
+ reason: 'Requirements not met'
+ });
+ Result::Err('Evolution requirements not met')
+ },
}
}Would you like me to help implement the generate_evolved_id and is_valid_evolved_id functions?
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
28-37: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Strengthen evolution eligibility checks.
The can_evolve implementation should also validate:
- Maximum limits for level_requirement and required_battles to prevent overflow
- Whether the evolution would result in a valid evolved_beast_id range
fn can_evolve(self: Evolution) -> bool {
+ // Check for overflows and valid ranges
+ if self.level_requirement > 100_u32 || self.required_battles > 1000_u32 {
+ return false;
+ }
let is_valid_item: bool = match self.required_item {
Option::Some(val) => val == rules::REQUIRED_ITEM,
Option::None => true,
};
is_valid_item &&
self.level_requirement > rules::LEVEL_REQUIREMENT &&
self.required_battles > rules::REQUIRED_BATTLES
}Likely invalid or redundant comment.
44-45: Address TODO comment about randomization.
The TODO comment about randomization needs to be addressed. Consider using:
- Block timestamp or other entropy sources
- Hash-based derivation
- Predefined evolution paths based on beast characteristics
Let me check if there are any randomization utilities available in the codebase:
jsanchez556
force-pushed
the
feat-evolution_model
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9e8a9ed to
7c7683f
Compare
|
@jsanchez556 could you please add a pic of the outputs of
to make sure all this is good? thank you! |
sozo-build.mp4sozo-test.mp4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/models/evolution.cairo (1)
14-24: Remove empty line in documentation block.The documentation is clear and helpful, but there's an unnecessary empty line after the module documentation that breaks the flow.
mod rules { /// Minimum rules for beast evolution - /// Minimum level required before evolution is possible const LEVEL_REQUIREMENT: u32 = 10;
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.gitignore(1 hunks).tool-versions(1 hunks)src/models/evolution.cairo(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .gitignore
- .tool-versions
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/models/evolution.cairo (4)
3-12: LGTM! Well-structured model definition.
The Evolution struct is well-defined with appropriate derive macros and contains all required fields as specified in the PR objectives. Good choice making base_beast_id the key field.
44-45: Replace TODO with a proper random number generation strategy.
The current TODO about random number generation should be addressed with a proper implementation.
Let's check if there are any existing random number generation utilities in the codebase:
39-50:
Improve evolved_beast_id generation and add proper validation.
The current implementation has several issues:
- The evolved_beast_id calculation is too predictable (multiplying by 10)
- No validation that the generated ID doesn't conflict with existing beasts
- No event emission for tracking evolution attempts
Consider implementing:
- A more sophisticated ID generation strategy
- Collision detection with existing beast IDs
- Event emission for tracking
fn evolve(ref self: Evolution) -> Result<u32, felt252> {
assert(self.base_beast_id != 0, 'Invalid base beast');
+ // Emit evolution attempt event
+ self.emit(EvolutionAttempt { base_beast_id: self.base_beast_id });
match self.can_evolve() {
true => {
- // TODO: investigate how can we make It random
- self.evolved_beast_id = self.base_beast_id * 10_u32;
+ // Generate evolved ID using a more sophisticated approach
+ let proposed_id = generate_evolved_id(self.base_beast_id);
+ // Validate the proposed ID doesn't exist
+ assert(!beast_exists(proposed_id), 'ID collision detected');
+ self.evolved_beast_id = proposed_id;
+ // Emit success event
+ self.emit(EvolutionSuccess {
+ base_beast_id: self.base_beast_id,
+ evolved_beast_id: self.evolved_beast_id
+ });
Result::Ok(self.evolved_beast_id)
},
- false => Result::Err('Evolution requirements not met'),
+ false => {
+ // Emit failure event
+ self.emit(EvolutionFailure {
+ base_beast_id: self.base_beast_id,
+ reason: 'Requirements not met'
+ });
+ Result::Err('Evolution requirements not met')
+ },
}Would you like me to help create a separate issue to track the implementation of a more sophisticated ID generation strategy?
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
28-37:
Add overflow protection to evolution requirements check.
The current implementation should protect against potential overflows in requirement comparisons.
fn can_evolve(self: Evolution) -> bool {
+ // Validate maximum values to prevent overflow
+ if self.level_requirement >= 1000000 || self.required_battles >= 1000000 {
+ return false;
+ }
let is_valid_item: bool = match self.required_item {
Option::Some(val) => val == rules::REQUIRED_ITEM,
Option::None => true,
};Likely invalid or redundant comment.
jsanchez556
force-pushed
the
feat-evolution_model
branch
from
089db26 to
73708c0
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json (1)
370-418: Consider adding safety measures for evolution processGiven that this is a game system where evolution represents a significant state change, consider implementing:
- Transaction atomicity to prevent partial evolutions
- Rate limiting to prevent abuse
- Event logging for audit trails
- Rollback mechanism for failed evolutions
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.gitignore(1 hunks).tool-versions(1 hunks)manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json(1 hunks)manifests/dev/base/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.toml(1 hunks)src/lib.cairo(1 hunks)src/models/evolution.cairo(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- .gitignore
- src/lib.cairo
- .tool-versions
- manifests/dev/base/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.toml
- src/models/evolution.cairo
🔇 Additional comments (4)
manifests/dev/base/abis/models/bytebeasts-Evolution-52744a50.json (4)
370-394: LGTM: Evolution model structure matches requirements
The Evolution struct correctly implements all required fields from the PR objectives with appropriate types:
- base_beast_id (u32)
- evolved_beast_id (u32)
- level_requirement (u32)
- required_battles (u32)
- required_item (Option)
396-412: Add missing core evolution functions to interface
The interface is missing the core functions specified in the PR objectives:
can_evolve: To check evolution eligibilityevolve: To execute the evolution process
413-418: Add essential event variants for evolution tracking
The Event enum is empty. Consider adding essential events to track evolution-related state changes.
3-6: Verify DojoModelImpl implementation exists
The ABI declares that DojoModelImpl implements IModel, but we should verify that the actual implementation exists and provides all required interface methods.
jsanchez556
force-pushed
the
feat-evolution_model
branch
from
259092b to
9d57797
Compare
jsanchez556
force-pushed
the
feat-evolution_model
branch
from
9d57797 to
f26c5a7
Compare
Closes #91
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Chores
.gitignoreto adhere to standard formatting practices.