refactor(precompile): do not execute write functions on staticcall

[fbac]

Description

Minor refactor, not associated to any issue or changelog. This is part of the preparation work before introducing the distribute functions.

The EVM marks staticcall as a readOnly low-level call, with this PR we avoid running write methods through static calls.

How Has This Been Tested?

• [ ] Tested CCTX in localnet
• [ ] Tested in development environment
• [X] Go unit tests
• [X] Go integration tests
• [X] Tested via GitHub Actions

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Introduced a read-only mode for staking operations, providing enhanced control over method execution.

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved error messaging for operations attempted in read-only mode, offering clearer feedback to users.

[coderabbitai[bot]]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request focus on the Run method of the Contract struct within the precompiles/staking/staking.go file. A new readOnly parameter has been introduced to the method signature, enabling the method to manage read-only operations. When the readOnly flag is true, the method now prevents execution of Stake, Unstake, and MoveStake operations, returning an error if they are invoked. The handling of GetAllValidators and GetShares remains unchanged, ensuring the method's overall structure is preserved while enhancing control over operation execution.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
precompiles/staking/staking.go	Updated Run method signature to include readOnly parameter; modified logic to check for read-only operations, returning errors for Stake, Unstake, and MoveStake when invoked in read-only mode; adjusted error messages for clarity.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant Contract
    participant EVM

    User->>Contract: Call Run(evm, contract, readOnly)
    alt readOnly is true
        Contract->>Contract: Check operation type
        alt Stake/Unstake/MoveStake
            Contract-->>User: Error: Operation not allowed in read-only mode
        else GetAllValidators/GetShares
            Contract-->>User: Return data
        end
    else readOnly is false
        Contract->>Contract: Execute operation
        Contract-->>User: Return result
    end

---

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?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 35.71429% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 66.02%. Comparing base (404bd96) to head (2105ca6). Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
precompiles/staking/staking.go	10.00%	6 Missing and 3 partials :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3001      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    66.05%   66.02%   -0.04%     
===========================================
  Files          397      397              
  Lines        22313    22337      +24     
===========================================
+ Hits         14739    14747       +8     
- Misses        6806     6816      +10     
- Partials       768      774       +6     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
precompiles/bank/bank.go	74.74% <100.00%> (ø)
precompiles/types/errors.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
precompiles/staking/staking.go	90.62% <10.00%> (-3.31%)	:arrow_down:

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes