Ton analyzer #629

huangzhen1997 · 2025-12-10T03:08:10Z

changeset-bot · 2025-12-10T03:08:13Z

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: bd55ade

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

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

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,


nit: 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.

experimental/analyzer/report_builder_test.go

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

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

+1 - let's mv this to fn per chain (+an interface)

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?

toNamedFields only fails when there's a keys/arguments mismatch, which indicates a programming bug rather than a transaction decode issue. So I think it would be better to surface this early. Both Sui and Aptos analyzers are returning errors at this point as well.

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go

krebernisak · 2026-01-19T12:25:18Z

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()" ||


+1 - let's mv this to fn per chain (+an interface)

krebernisak · 2026-01-19T12:31:47Z

experimental/analyzer/ton_analyzer.go

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


Should be available to import now

Copilot

Pull request overview

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

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

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go

Copilot · 2026-01-22T02:05:25Z

experimental/analyzer/upf/upf.go

+	// Use Contains because the opcode suffix (0x...) varies
+	if strings.Contains(functionName, "::ScheduleBatch(") ||
+		strings.Contains(functionName, "::BypasserExecuteBatch(") {
+		return true
+	}
+
+	return false
+}
+


Using Contains for TON function matching may result in false positives. Consider using a more precise pattern match or HasPrefix/HasSuffix combination to ensure the function name starts with the contract type and ends with the expected pattern, avoiding matches in the middle of longer function names.

Suggested change

// Use Contains because the opcode suffix (0x...) varies

if strings.Contains(functionName, "::ScheduleBatch(") ||

strings.Contains(functionName, "::BypasserExecuteBatch(") {

return true

}

return false

}

if isTONTimelockBatchFunction(functionName) {

return true

}

return false

}

// isTONTimelockBatchFunction checks if a TON function name corresponds to a timelock batch operation.

// Expected format: ContractType::ScheduleBatch(0x...), ContractType::BypasserExecuteBatch(0x...)

// We split on the first "::" and then require the function part to start with the expected pattern,

// avoiding matches in the middle of longer function names.

func isTONTimelockBatchFunction(functionName string) bool {

parts := strings.SplitN(functionName, "::", 2)

if len(parts) != 2 {

return false

}

contractType := parts[0]

functionPart := parts[1]

if contractType == "" {

return false

}

return strings.HasPrefix(functionPart, "ScheduleBatch(") ||

strings.HasPrefix(functionPart, "BypasserExecuteBatch(")

}

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

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 10 out of 11 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.

cl-sonarqube-production · 2026-01-22T22:16:37Z

Quality Gate passed

Issues
1 New issue
1 Fixed issue
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
90.4% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube

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

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 previously approved these changes Jan 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

krebernisak reviewed Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

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

264318f

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 22, 2026 02:04

huangzhen1997 dismissed ecPablo’s stale review via 264318f January 22, 2026 02:04

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

huangzhen1997 and others added 2 commits January 21, 2026 20:35

fix go mod and update registry

4d80162

Update experimental/analyzer/upf/upf_test.go

a005805

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 22, 2026 02:36

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix test and refactor timelock checker

c3530bf

huangzhen1997 requested review from ecPablo and krebernisak January 22, 2026 02:56

fix lint

46fb259

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 22, 2026 03:01

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

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

bd55ade

	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

-	// Use Contains because the opcode suffix (0x...) varies
-	if strings.Contains(functionName, "::ScheduleBatch(") ||
-		strings.Contains(functionName, "::BypasserExecuteBatch(") {
-		return true
-	}
-	return false
-}
+	if isTONTimelockBatchFunction(functionName) {
+		return true
+	}
+	return false
+}
+// isTONTimelockBatchFunction checks if a TON function name corresponds to a timelock batch operation.
+// Expected format: ContractType::ScheduleBatch(0x...), ContractType::BypasserExecuteBatch(0x...)
+// We split on the first "::" and then require the function part to start with the expected pattern,
+// avoiding matches in the middle of longer function names.
+func isTONTimelockBatchFunction(functionName string) bool {
+	parts := strings.SplitN(functionName, "::", 2)
+	if len(parts) != 2 {
+		return false
+	}
+	contractType := parts[0]
+	functionPart := parts[1]
+	if contractType == "" {
+		return false
+	}
+	return strings.HasPrefix(functionPart, "ScheduleBatch(") ||
+		strings.HasPrefix(functionPart, "BypasserExecuteBatch(")
+}

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!

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!

krebernisak 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!

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!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gustavogama-cll left a comment

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 Dec 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

huangzhen1997 commented Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

changeset-bot bot commented Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

huangzhen1997 Dec 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

krebernisak Dec 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

huangzhen1997 Dec 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading