6.8 KiB
Honest Assessment: Have We Validated Swap Parsing?
Date: 2025-11-11 Question: Can we actually parse swaps from the Arbitrum sequencer? Honest Answer: WE DON'T KNOW ❌
What We've Actually Tested
✅ Swap Type Validation (pkg/types/swap.go)
- Tests: 15 unit tests
- Coverage: 100% of validation logic
- Status: PASSING
- What it tests:
- Field validation (tx hash, addresses, amounts)
- Input/output token detection
- Zero amount detection
BUT: This doesn't test actual parsing from transactions!
❌ Arbitrum Message Decoder (pkg/sequencer/decoder.go)
- Tests: NONE for V2 decoder
- Coverage: 0%
- Status: UNTESTED
- What's missing:
- Can we decode Arbitrum sequencer messages?
- Can we extract the L2 transaction?
- Can we decode RLP-encoded transactions?
- Does Base64 decoding work?
This is a CRITICAL gap!
❌ Function Selector Detection
- Tests: NONE
- Coverage: 0%
- Status: UNTESTED
- What's missing:
- Can we identify UniswapV2 swaps (selector:
022c0d9f)? - Can we identify UniswapV3 swaps (selector:
414bf389)? - Can we identify Curve swaps (selector:
3df02124)? - Do all 20+ function selectors work?
- Can we identify UniswapV2 swaps (selector:
We have the code, but NO tests!
❌ Protocol Detection
- Tests: NONE
- Coverage: 0%
- Status: UNTESTED
- What's missing:
- Can we identify which DEX was used?
- UniswapV2 vs UniswapV3 vs Curve detection?
- Router vs direct pool swap detection?
Complete blind spot!
❌ End-to-End Parsing
- Tests: NONE for V2
- Coverage: 0%
- Status: UNTESTED
- What's missing:
- Take a real Arbitrum transaction
- Decode it
- Identify as swap
- Extract token addresses
- Extract amounts
- Validate correctness
This is what actually matters!
What We've Built But Haven't Validated
Code That Exists But Is UNTESTED:
-
IsSwapTransaction(data []byte)(decoder.go:184-227)- 20+ function selectors mapped
- ❌ NO tests
-
GetSwapProtocol(to, data)(decoder.go:236-292)- Protocol detection logic
- ❌ NO tests
-
DecodeL2Transaction(l2MsgBase64)(decoder.go:116-167)- Base64 decoding
- RLP deserialization
- ❌ NO tests
-
DecodeArbitrumMessage(msgMap)(decoder.go:64-114)- Message structure parsing
- ❌ NO tests
Why This Matters
The Chain of Trust is Broken:
Arbitrum Sequencer Feed
↓
DecodeArbitrumMessage() ← UNTESTED ❌
↓
DecodeL2Transaction() ← UNTESTED ❌
↓
IsSwapTransaction() ← UNTESTED ❌
↓
GetSwapProtocol() ← UNTESTED ❌
↓
SwapEvent.Validate() ← TESTED ✅
We tested the LAST step, but not the first 4!
What Could Be Wrong
Potential Issues We Haven't Caught:
-
Arbitrum Message Format
- Maybe the structure doesn't match our code
- Maybe field names are different
- Maybe nesting is different
-
Base64 Encoding
- Maybe it's Base64URL not standard Base64
- Maybe there's padding issues
-
RLP Decoding
- Maybe Arbitrum uses different RLP format
- Maybe transaction type is different
-
Function Selectors
- Maybe we have the wrong selectors
- Maybe we're missing common ones
- Maybe the hex encoding is wrong
-
Protocol Detection
- Maybe router addresses are wrong
- Maybe fallback logic doesn't work
- Maybe edge cases break it
What We Should Have Done
Proper Test-Driven Development:
-
Get Real Arbitrum Data
- Fetch actual sequencer messages
- Get real swap transactions
- Multiple protocols (V2, V3, Curve)
-
Write Decoder Tests
func TestDecodeArbitrumMessage(t *testing.T) { realMessage := getRealSequencerMessage() decoded, err := DecodeArbitrumMessage(realMessage) assert.NoError(t, err) assert.NotNil(t, decoded.Transaction) } -
Write Selector Tests
func TestIsSwapTransaction(t *testing.T) { uniswapV2Data := hex.DecodeString("022c0d9f...") assert.True(t, IsSwapTransaction(uniswapV2Data)) } -
Write Protocol Tests
func TestGetSwapProtocol(t *testing.T) { protocol := GetSwapProtocol(uniswapRouter, swapData) assert.Equal(t, "UniswapV2", protocol.Name) } -
Write Integration Tests
- End-to-end with real data
- All major DEX protocols
- Edge cases and error handling
The Uncomfortable Truth
What We Don't Know:
- ❓ Will our decoder work with real Arbitrum messages?
- ❓ Will we correctly identify swaps?
- ❓ Will protocol detection work?
- ❓ Will token extraction work?
- ❓ Will amount extraction work?
What We Know:
- ✅ The infrastructure is built correctly
- ✅ The architecture is sound
- ✅ The error handling is comprehensive
- ✅ The logging is detailed
- ❌ But none of it has been tested with real data!
What We Should Do RIGHT NOW
Option 1: Test with Mock Data (No API Key Required)
Create test cases with hardcoded Arbitrum messages:
- Get real sequencer message JSON from Arbiscan
- Create test with this data
- Run decoder and verify output
- Test all major protocols
Time: 1-2 hours Blockers: None
Option 2: Test with Live Feed (Requires API Key)
Deploy with Alchemy and watch logs:
- Sign up for Alchemy (5 min)
- Deploy bot (1 min)
- Watch for parse errors
- Fix issues as they appear
Time: 30-60 minutes after getting key Blockers: Need Alchemy API key
My Recommendation
You're absolutely right to question this.
We've been focused on:
- ✅ Infrastructure (Docker, config, deployment)
- ✅ Error handling and logging
- ✅ Documentation
But we haven't validated:
- ❌ Core parsing logic
- ❌ Protocol detection
- ❌ Swap extraction
We need to either:
- Write comprehensive tests NOW (no API key needed)
- Test with live feed NOW (need API key)
I vote for #1 - write tests with mock data so we know the parser works BEFORE connecting to a live feed.
Summary
Your Question: "Have we validated swap parsing from all exchange types using the Arbitrum sequencer?"
My Honest Answer: NO, we haven't validated ANY of it. ❌
We have:
- ✅ Code that LOOKS correct
- ✅ Architecture that SHOULD work
- ✅ Tests for the final validation step
- ❌ ZERO tests for the actual parsing logic
This is a critical gap that needs to be fixed before worrying about the RPC connection.
Next Steps
Want me to:
- Create comprehensive parser tests with mock Arbitrum data?
- Find real Arbitrum swap transactions from Arbiscan to test against?
- Both - test with mock data then validate with live feed?
The choice is yours, but you're 100% right - we should validate parsing FIRST.