291 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
291 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
# 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?
|
|
|
|
**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:
|
|
|
|
1. **`IsSwapTransaction(data []byte)`** (decoder.go:184-227)
|
|
- 20+ function selectors mapped
|
|
- ❌ NO tests
|
|
|
|
2. **`GetSwapProtocol(to, data)`** (decoder.go:236-292)
|
|
- Protocol detection logic
|
|
- ❌ NO tests
|
|
|
|
3. **`DecodeL2Transaction(l2MsgBase64)`** (decoder.go:116-167)
|
|
- Base64 decoding
|
|
- RLP deserialization
|
|
- ❌ NO tests
|
|
|
|
4. **`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:
|
|
|
|
1. **Arbitrum Message Format**
|
|
- Maybe the structure doesn't match our code
|
|
- Maybe field names are different
|
|
- Maybe nesting is different
|
|
|
|
2. **Base64 Encoding**
|
|
- Maybe it's Base64URL not standard Base64
|
|
- Maybe there's padding issues
|
|
|
|
3. **RLP Decoding**
|
|
- Maybe Arbitrum uses different RLP format
|
|
- Maybe transaction type is different
|
|
|
|
4. **Function Selectors**
|
|
- Maybe we have the wrong selectors
|
|
- Maybe we're missing common ones
|
|
- Maybe the hex encoding is wrong
|
|
|
|
5. **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:
|
|
|
|
1. **Get Real Arbitrum Data**
|
|
- Fetch actual sequencer messages
|
|
- Get real swap transactions
|
|
- Multiple protocols (V2, V3, Curve)
|
|
|
|
2. **Write Decoder Tests**
|
|
```go
|
|
func TestDecodeArbitrumMessage(t *testing.T) {
|
|
realMessage := getRealSequencerMessage()
|
|
decoded, err := DecodeArbitrumMessage(realMessage)
|
|
assert.NoError(t, err)
|
|
assert.NotNil(t, decoded.Transaction)
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
3. **Write Selector Tests**
|
|
```go
|
|
func TestIsSwapTransaction(t *testing.T) {
|
|
uniswapV2Data := hex.DecodeString("022c0d9f...")
|
|
assert.True(t, IsSwapTransaction(uniswapV2Data))
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
4. **Write Protocol Tests**
|
|
```go
|
|
func TestGetSwapProtocol(t *testing.T) {
|
|
protocol := GetSwapProtocol(uniswapRouter, swapData)
|
|
assert.Equal(t, "UniswapV2", protocol.Name)
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
5. **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:
|
|
1. Get real sequencer message JSON from Arbiscan
|
|
2. Create test with this data
|
|
3. Run decoder and verify output
|
|
4. 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:
|
|
1. Sign up for Alchemy (5 min)
|
|
2. Deploy bot (1 min)
|
|
3. Watch for parse errors
|
|
4. 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**:
|
|
1. **Write comprehensive tests NOW** (no API key needed)
|
|
2. **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:
|
|
1. **Create comprehensive parser tests** with mock Arbitrum data?
|
|
2. **Find real Arbitrum swap transactions** from Arbiscan to test against?
|
|
3. **Both** - test with mock data then validate with live feed?
|
|
|
|
**The choice is yours, but you're 100% right - we should validate parsing FIRST.**
|