chore(lib/trie): refactor lib/trie/database.go

[qdm12]

Changes

This is a simple 'linear' refactor in order to see diffs in a clearer way.

• Explicit variable names
• Less indentation (avoid type switches)
• More return early
• Add named returns
• Clarify comments
• Wrap errors

Tests

go test github.com/ChainSafe/gossamer/lib/trie/... github.com/ChainSafe/gossamer/internal/trie/...

Issues

• lib/trie: refactor and add tests for trie and database related code #2085

Primary Reviewer

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2108 (7dfb20c) into development (de6e7c9) will increase coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 86.38%.

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##           development    #2108      +/-   ##
===============================================
+ Coverage        61.37%   61.51%   +0.13%     
===============================================
  Files              202      213      +11     
  Lines            27362    27429      +67     
===============================================
+ Hits             16794    16873      +79     
+ Misses            8692     8688       -4     
+ Partials          1876     1868       -8     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit-tests	61.51% <86.38%> (+0.13%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
dot/state/offline_pruner.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
lib/trie/database.go	51.72% <57.75%> (+2.31%)	⬆️
lib/trie/print.go	80.00% <71.42%> (-4.32%)	⬇️
internal/trie/node/leaf_encode.go	80.26% <80.26%> (ø)
lib/trie/proof.go	68.75% <83.33%> (-0.64%)	⬇️
internal/trie/node/branch_encode.go	84.84% <84.84%> (ø)
internal/trie/node/hash.go	85.71% <85.71%> (ø)
lib/trie/lookup.go	73.91% <88.88%> (ø)
lib/trie/trie.go	91.62% <95.87%> (-0.61%)	⬇️
internal/trie/codec/nibbles.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 20 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a3ae30b...7dfb20c. Read the comment docs.

[kishansagathiya]

🎉
I like that we are checking !ok instead of ok
Looks good, only small comments!

[qdm12]

@kishansagathiya

I like that we are checking !ok instead of ok

Where do you mean this? 🤔

[kishansagathiya]

@qdm12

like that we are checking !ok instead of ok

Sometimes, we check for the expected condition (true) and run when true and don't do anything when false.

I think you would have checked for the unexpected condition first and run some code on that unexpected condition.

[qdm12]

@kishansagathiya I tend to have the smaller code part inside the if block checking ok to reduce code indentation and improve readability. Maybe do you have an example where this could be improved in this PR?