Ton analyzer #629

huangzhen1997 · 2025-12-10T03:08:10Z

changeset-bot · 2025-12-10T03:08:13Z

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: a06f6eb

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
chainlink-deployments-framework	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds TON blockchain analyzer support to the chainlink-deployments-framework. The implementation follows existing patterns for other chain families (Aptos, Sui, Solana) by integrating TON-specific MCMS SDK functionality.

Key changes:

Added TON transaction analysis capabilities with decoder integration
Updated dependency versions including Go runtime, MCMS SDK, and various libraries
Refactored transaction encoding logic to use family-based routing

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
go.mod	Updated Go version to 1.25.3 and bumped various dependencies including MCMS SDK, TON utilities, and added chainlink-ton package
experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go	Integrated TON family support in UPF decoding with mcmstonsdk decoder and simplified encoding logic
experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go	New file implementing TON transaction analysis functions mirroring Sui/Aptos patterns
experimental/analyzer/report_builder.go	Added TON family handling in proposal and timelock report builders

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go

krebernisak · 2025-12-10T12:00:08Z

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

 	}

-	// Use a TON chain selector - TON family is not handled in the switch statement
+	// Use a TRON chain selector - TRON family is not handled in the switch statement


Why TRON in this PR?

Also, there's multiple tests ran across multiple chain families in this file, we should add a TON test to those.

This unit test is for checking the behavior of the unsupported chain. Previous TON Analyzer was not supported so they used TON here. Switching to TRON now as TON is supported. The Chain-selector pkg requires all chain selector to have a chain family, but here we are okay with certain chain family missing analyzer support. Not sure what would be a better way to handle the default test case here besides update the chain family to another unsupported family.

I will add TON analyzer test coverage

TRON == EVM, so it should be supported out of the box (or close).

Why not add an ACME imaginary chain as a not-supported example?

we do have a separate TRON family, which is returned using chainsel.TRON_DEVNET.Selector. This is a bit awkward, since modifying chain-selector to return a imaginary chain family would be weird (current behavior is return error when chain selector is not registered for its family).

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go

krebernisak · 2025-12-15T13:12:27Z

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go

+
+	// Sui: mcms::timelock_schedule_batch, mcms::timelock_bypasser_execute_batch
+	// Aptos: package::module::timelock_schedule_batch, package::module::timelock_bypasser_execute_batch
+	// TON: ContractType::ScheduleBatch(0x...), ContractType::BypasserExecuteBatch(0x...)


WIll TON type will be provided like this? (e.g., "com.chainlink.ton.lib.access.RBAC::GrantRole(0x0)")

I didn't check the contract type, because with the timelock converter it would be converted to RBACTimelock::ScheduleBatch(0x0)

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go

krebernisak · 2025-12-15T13:23:36Z

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

+			expectedMsg: "EVM registry is not available",
+			wantErr:     true,


Can't this be simplified as wantErr: string which if set is the expected error string?

krebernisak · 2025-12-15T13:24:42Z

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

+			name:        "TON_decode_failure",
+			selector:    chainsel.TON_TESTNET.Selector,
+			expectedMsg: "failed to decode TON transaction",
+			wantErr:     false, // TON doesn't unmarshal AdditionalFields, so decode errors go to Method field


Hmm, not sure why is here a difference for TON? There shouldn't be one...

Doesn't SUI impl also surfaces errors via .Method member:

chainlink-deployments-framework/experimental/analyzer/sui_analyzer.go

Line 39 in c56332e

Method: errStr.Error(),

This test is for default unhappy pass, where the analyze function suppose to fail immediately. Unlike SUI we don't need extra field Unmarshal, so the first error will be hiding in Method field.

krebernisak · 2025-12-15T13:26:15Z

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

 	}

-	// Use a TON chain selector - TON family is not handled in the switch statement
+	// Use a TRON chain selector - TRON family is not handled in the switch statement


TRON == EVM, so it should be supported out of the box (or close).

Why not add an ACME imaginary chain as a not-supported example?

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go

krebernisak · 2025-12-15T13:41:50Z

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

+			name:        "TON_decode_failure",
+			selector:    chainsel.TON_TESTNET.Selector,
+			expectedMsg: "failed to decode TON transaction",
+			wantErr:     false, // TON doesn't unmarshal AdditionalFields, so decode errors go to Method field


Shouldn't diverge from other test cases

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go

Copilot · 2025-12-16T21:19:22Z

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go

+var typeToTLBMap = map[string]lib.TLBMap{
+	"com.chainlink.ton.lib.access.RBAC": rbac.TLBs,
+	"com.chainlink.ton.mcms.MCMS":       mcms.TLBs,
+	"com.chainlink.ton.mcms.Timelock":   timelock.TLBs,
+	"RBACTimelock":                      timelock.TLBs,
+}


The typeToTLBMap variable lacks documentation explaining why 'RBACTimelock' maps to the same TLB as 'com.chainlink.ton.mcms.Timelock', and what the contract type naming convention is. This mapping appears in multiple contexts throughout the code and should be documented to explain the relationship between these contract types.

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go

gustavogama-cll · 2025-12-19T21:48:28Z

experimental/analyzer/sui_analyzer.go

 	decodedTxs := make([]*DecodedCall, len(txs))
 	for i, op := range txs {
-		analyzedTransaction, err := AnalyzeSuiTransaction(ctx, decoder, chainSelector, op)
+		analyzedTransaction, err := AnalyzeSuiTransaction(ctx, chainSelector, op)


why do we need to create new decoder for every transaction?

gustavogama-cll · 2025-12-19T21:54:25Z

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go

+	"github.com/smartcontractkit/mcms/types"
+)
+
+var typeToTLBMap = map[string]lib.TLBMap{


is the plan to expand this with more contracts from the product team? If so, this needs to be handled in the same way we handle the EVM and Solana contracts: you need to create a "ton contract registry" type and expose it through the ProposalContext interface.

Thanks for the context, this binding map is still wip from the sdk side, we will probably not have the map hardcoded here and import by the sdk instead. cc @krebernisak

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go

gustavogama-cll

Please don't forget to add a changeset and a proper comment to the PR's description.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-12-21T16:37:34Z

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go

 	}
 }

+func TestUpfConvertTimelockProposalWithTon(t *testing.T) {


The function name 'TestUpfConvertTimelockProposalWithTon' is inconsistent with Go naming conventions. 'Ton' should be 'TON' to match the established pattern in other test names like 'TestUpfConvertTimelockProposalWithSui'.

Suggested change

func TestUpfConvertTimelockProposalWithTon(t *testing.T) {

func TestUpfConvertTimelockProposalWithTON(t *testing.T) {

Copilot · 2025-12-21T16:37:34Z

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

+			name:        "TON_decode_failure",
+			selector:    chainsel.TON_TESTNET.Selector,
+			expectedMsg: "failed to decode TON transaction",
+			wantErr:     false, // TON doesn't unmarshal AdditionalFields, so decode errors go to Method field


The comment explains TON's behavior of not unmarshaling AdditionalFields, but this is misleading in the context of decode failures. The actual reason decode errors don't return as errors is stated in ton_analyzer.go:48 - it's to prevent blocking the whole proposal. Consider updating the comment to: '// TON returns decode errors in Method field to avoid blocking proposal processing'.

Suggested change

wantErr: false, // TON doesn't unmarshal AdditionalFields, so decode errors go to Method field

wantErr: false, // TON returns decode errors in Method field to avoid blocking proposal processing

Copilot · 2025-12-21T16:37:35Z

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

+			name:        "TON_decode_failure",
+			selector:    chainsel.TON_TESTNET.Selector,
+			expectedMsg: "failed to decode TON transaction",
+			wantErr:     false, // TON doesn't unmarshal AdditionalFields, so decode errors go to Method field


Same issue as Comment 4 - the comment is misleading about why decode errors go to the Method field. The reason is to avoid blocking proposal processing, not specifically about AdditionalFields unmarshaling.

Suggested change

wantErr: false, // TON doesn't unmarshal AdditionalFields, so decode errors go to Method field

wantErr: false, // decode errors are reported in the Method field so proposal processing is not blocked

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go

cl-sonarqube-production · 2025-12-21T17:31:26Z

Quality Gate passed

Issues
3 New issues
1 Fixed issue
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
90.7% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube

ecPablo

LGTM! Left a couple nit comments but nothing blocking

ecPablo · 2025-12-12T15:38:44Z

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go

+		// Instead, put the error message in the Method field so it's visible in the report.
+		errStr := fmt.Errorf("failed to decode TON transaction: %w", err)
+
+		return &DecodedCall{


I'm wondering if we should double check this with security. From one side I agree that a failure to decode should not be a blocker for operational activity, but on the other side I know security wants to push for us to reduce blind signing of proposals as much as possible. Will it be common to see decode of operations failing?

ecPablo · 2026-01-06T12:38:53Z

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go

+// across different chain families (EVM, Solana, Sui, Aptos, TON).
+func isTimelockBatchFunction(functionName string) bool {
+	// EVM function signatures
+	if functionName == "function scheduleBatch((address,uint256,bytes)[] calls, bytes32 predecessor, bytes32 salt, uint256 delay) returns()" ||


nit: we could move this to small per chain family helpers to keep this function a bit more concise and readable

ecPablo · 2026-01-06T12:40:43Z

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go

+
+	namedArgs, err := toNamedFields(decodedOp)
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to convert decoded operation to named arguments: %w", err)


should we do the same thing of not returning an error and instead putting it on the Decoded call for the same reasons as the comment above?

support ton analyzer, need testing

e0f9aab

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 10, 2025 03:08

huangzhen1997 requested a review from a team as a code owner December 10, 2025 03:08

huangzhen1997 marked this pull request as draft December 10, 2025 03:08

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix typo

a51337a

smartcontractkit deleted a comment from github-actions bot Dec 10, 2025

huangzhen1997 added 2 commits December 9, 2025 21:22

mod tidy

09fc3c2

update test

fe17bf1

krebernisak reviewed Dec 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

huangzhen1997 added 5 commits December 10, 2025 13:23

simplify analyze function

a7aa1a2

refactor

d6f8113

fix lint

d33bd19

Merge branch 'main' into NONEVM-3070/support-ton-analyzer

751007d

add test coverage

c6e01f1

huangzhen1997 requested review from Copilot and krebernisak December 12, 2025 02:01

huangzhen1997 marked this pull request as ready for review December 12, 2025 02:01

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

huangzhen1997 added 2 commits December 11, 2025 21:06

lint

93c385e

add test

a840aea

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 12, 2025 04:00

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix lint

c56332e

huangzhen1997 requested a review from Copilot December 12, 2025 04:25

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

huangzhen1997 requested a review from ecPablo December 12, 2025 15:22

krebernisak reviewed Dec 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into NONEVM-3070/support-ton-analyzer

7294c52

address comments

ccad05a

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 15, 2025 23:11

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

huangzhen1997 added 2 commits December 15, 2025 17:41

update test

6f521dc

bump mcms version

933d0b8

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 16, 2025 21:16

Merge branch 'main' into NONEVM-3070/support-ton-analyzer

0d0ee38

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

bump version

ed21211

gustavogama-cll reviewed Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

gustavogama-cll reviewed Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

gustavogama-cll reviewed Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved

gustavogama-cll reviewed Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

gustavogama-cll reviewed Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into NONEVM-3070/support-ton-analyzer

19647e5

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 21, 2025 16:37

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

huangzhen1997 added 2 commits December 21, 2025 11:13

address comments

163c1f0

fix lint and changeset

324486c

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 21, 2025 17:23

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

huangzhen1997 requested review from gustavogama-cll and krebernisak December 21, 2025 17:24

typo

a06f6eb

ecPablo approved these changes Jan 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

	func TestUpfConvertTimelockProposalWithTon(t *testing.T) {
	func TestUpfConvertTimelockProposalWithTON(t *testing.T) {

	wantErr: false, // TON doesn't unmarshal AdditionalFields, so decode errors go to Method field
	wantErr: false, // TON returns decode errors in Method field to avoid blocking proposal processing

	wantErr: false, // TON doesn't unmarshal AdditionalFields, so decode errors go to Method field
	wantErr: false, // decode errors are reported in the Method field so proposal processing is not blocked

Ton analyzer #629

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Ton analyzer #629

Uh oh!

Conversation

huangzhen1997 commented Dec 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

changeset-bot bot commented Dec 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🦋 Changeset detected

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

huangzhen1997 Dec 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

huangzhen1997 Dec 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

huangzhen1997 Dec 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

huangzhen1997 commented Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

changeset-bot bot commented Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

huangzhen1997 Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

huangzhen1997 Dec 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

huangzhen1997 Dec 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

gustavogama-cll Dec 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading