Skip to content

feat(ethexe): Add descriptive error messages when injected transaction is invalid #5041

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
ecol-master wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat(ethexe): Add descriptive error messages when injected transaction is invalid #5041

ecol-master wants to merge 8 commits into from
+170 −94

Conversation

@ecol-master
Copy link
Member

@ecol-master ecol-master commented Dec 16, 2025

@semanticdiff-com
Copy link

semanticdiff-com bot commented Dec 16, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Review changes with  SemanticDiff

Changed Files
File Status
  ethexe/service/src/tests/mod.rs  53% smaller
  ethexe/rpc/src/lib.rs  31% smaller
  ethexe/consensus/src/validator/tx_pool.rs  27% smaller
  ethexe/rpc/src/apis/injected.rs  25% smaller
  ethexe/consensus/src/tx_validation.rs  24% smaller
  ethexe/consensus/src/announces.rs  2% smaller
  ethexe/common/src/injected.rs  0% smaller
  ethexe/consensus/src/lib.rs  0% smaller
  ethexe/consensus/src/validator/producer.rs  0% smaller
  ethexe/service/src/lib.rs Unsupported file format

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link

gemini-code-assist bot commented Dec 16, 2025

Summary of Changes

Hello @ecol-master, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request significantly upgrades the error reporting mechanism for injected transactions within the ethexe system. By introducing a structured hierarchy of transaction validity statuses and detailed rejection reasons, the system can now provide precise feedback when transactions are invalid or temporarily unprocessable. This enhancement is crucial for improving the transparency and debuggability of transaction processing, ensuring that users and services receive clear explanations for transaction failures rather than generic error codes. The changes are integrated across the common data types, consensus validation logic, transaction pooling, and the RPC layer to ensure consistent and comprehensive error propagation.

Highlights

  • Enhanced Transaction Validity Statuses: Introduced new enums (TxValidity, TxValidityIntermediateStatus, TxInvalidityStatus) and a struct (TxRejection) in ethexe-common to provide more granular and descriptive reasons for why an injected transaction might be invalid or in an intermediate state. This replaces simpler, less informative validity statuses.
  • Improved Transaction Validation Logic: The TxValidityChecker in ethexe-consensus has been refactored to leverage these new detailed status types. It now returns specific invalidity reasons (e.g., Duplicate, Outdated, UnknownDestination) or intermediate states (NotOnCurrentBranch), allowing for better handling and communication of transaction issues.
  • Refined Transaction Pool Management: The InjectedTxPool now returns a TxPoolOutput containing both successfully selected transactions and a list of TxRejection details for transactions that were deemed invalid. Invalid transactions are also proactively removed from the pool, improving efficiency and accuracy.
  • RPC Communication of Rejections: The RPC API has been extended to include a RejectedTransactions event, allowing clients to subscribe and receive detailed TxRejection messages. This enables immediate feedback to users about why their injected transactions were not processed, significantly enhancing the developer and user experience.
  • Dependency Update: The derive_more crate has been added as a dependency to facilitate the derivation of Display traits for the new error and status types, making them easily printable and readable.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

@ecol-master ecol-master self-assigned this Dec 16, 2025
@ecol-master ecol-master added A1-inprogress Issue is in progress or PR draft is not ready to be reviewed C1-feature Feature request D8-ethexe ethexe-related PR labels Dec 16, 2025
gemini-code-assist[bot]
gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Dec 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request introduces descriptive error messages for invalid injected transactions by refactoring TxValidity into a more structured enum and adding a TxRejection type to propagate rejection reasons to the RPC layer. The changes are generally well-implemented and improve error handling. I've identified a couple of critical issues that will prevent the code from compiling or working as expected, along with a minor issue regarding an error message. My review includes suggestions to fix these problems.

@ecol-master ecol-master marked this pull request as ready for review December 17, 2025 10:20
@ecol-master
Copy link
Member Author

ecol-master commented Dec 17, 2025

/gemini review

gemini-code-assist[bot]
gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Dec 17, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request introduces descriptive error messages for invalid injected transactions by refactoring the transaction validity logic. New enums (TxValidity, TxValidityIntermediateStatus, TxInvalidityStatus) and a TxRejection struct are added to provide detailed feedback to clients via RPC subscriptions.

My review has identified a significant issue where the handling of transactions for uninitialized actors appears to have unintentionally changed. Previously kept in the transaction pool, they are now being rejected as invalid. I've provided a detailed comment and suggestion to align this with the documented intent and prior behavior.

Additionally, I've pointed out a minor readability issue due to variable shadowing in the RPC API implementation.

Overall, the changes are a good step towards better error reporting, and both identified issues should be addressed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

1 more reviewer

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist[bot] gemini-code-assist[bot] left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@ecol-master ecol-master

Labels

A1-inprogress Issue is in progress or PR draft is not ready to be reviewed C1-feature Feature request D8-ethexe ethexe-related PR

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@ecol-master