updates network names in networks.json #866
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
config/networks.json (1)
Line range hint
168-172: Consider standardizing URL formats.There are inconsistencies in URL formatting:
- Some URLs end with trailing slashes (e.g., "https://cronoscan.com/")
- Different explorer URL patterns (e.g., "https://rootstock.blockscout.com" vs "https://cronoscan.com")
Consider standardizing the URL format to prevent potential URL concatenation issues.
Also applies to: 489-503
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
config/networks.json(34 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
config/networks.json (3)
3-3: LGTM! Network name standardization is consistent.
The network names have been standardized to lowercase identifiers consistently across all networks, which improves maintainability and reduces the chance of case-sensitivity issues.
Also applies to: 21-21, 39-39, 57-57, 75-75, 93-93, 111-111, 129-129, 147-147, 165-165, 183-183, 201-201, 219-219, 237-237, 255-255, 273-273, 291-291, 309-309, 327-327, 345-345, 363-363, 381-381, 399-399, 417-417, 435-435, 453-453, 471-471, 489-489, 507-507, 525-525, 543-543, 561-561, 579-579, 597-597
Line range hint 1-612: Security configurations look good.
- All production network RPC URLs properly use HTTPS
- Inactive networks are clearly marked with
"status": "inactive" - Local test network appropriately uses HTTP for localhost
Line range hint 435-450: Verify empty configuration values for inactive networks.
Some networks have empty configuration values:
- opbnb: Missing explorerApiUrl and safeApiUrl
- localanvil: Multiple empty values (expected for local test network)
Please confirm if these empty values are intentional.
Also applies to: 597-612
✅ Verification successful
Empty configuration values are intentional for inactive networks
The empty configuration values are consistent with the network status:
- Both networks with empty values (
opbnbandlocalanvil) are marked asinactive localanvilis a local test network where empty values are expected- Empty API URLs for inactive networks is a common pattern as these endpoints aren't needed
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any other network configurations with empty values
# Search for empty string values in the JSON
jq -r 'to_entries[] | select((.value | to_entries[] | select(.value == "")) != null) | .key' config/networks.json
Length of output: 193
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the status of networks with empty values and their specific empty fields
jq -r '.[] | select((.explorerApiUrl == "" or .safeApiUrl == "")) | {name, status, explorerApiUrl, safeApiUrl}' config/networks.json
Length of output: 319
Test Coverage ReportLine Coverage: 76.10% (1675 / 2201 lines) |
Which Jira task belongs to this PR?
Why did I implement it this way?
Checklist before requesting a review
Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)