[Access] Fix ParseAddress() by only removing prefix "0x"

[fxamacker]

Currently, ParseAddress() removes all instances of "0x" in the address input, instead of just the "0x" prefix.

This bug can cause an invalid input address containing a non-prefix "0x" to be treated as valid.

This PR:

• only removes "0x" only if it is a prefix
• returns an error if "0x" is present as a non-prefix
• adds a test case for this

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved address parsing normalization to remove only a single leading "0x" prefix instead of stripping all occurrences. This ensures more robust handling of address inputs with unusual formatting and enhances validation accuracy.

[github-actions]

Dependency Review

✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.

Scanned Files

None

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The address parser normalization is refined to remove only the leading "0x" prefix instead of stripping all occurrences throughout the string. A test case for double-prefixed malformed addresses is added to verify rejection as invalid.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Address Parser Update engine/access/rest/common/parser/address.go, engine/access/rest/common/parser/address_test.go	Modified prefix removal logic from ReplaceAll (all occurrences) to TrimPrefix (leading only); test case added for malformed input with double "0x" prefix validation.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• [Flow EVM] Add strict hex-prefix check when parsing EVM addresses from String #8437: Tightens address parsing "0x"-prefix stripping logic with similar intent of correcting leading prefix detection.

Suggested reviewers

• janezpodhostnik

Poem

🐰 A pair of oh-exes causing trouble,
We stripped them all—a parsing bubble,
Now just the leading one must go,
The address parser passes the test show! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely summarizes the main change: fixing ParseAddress() to remove only a leading '0x' prefix instead of all occurrences.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings (stacked PR)
• 📝 Generate docstrings (commit on current branch)

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch fxamacker/fix-parse-address-bug

Tip

Issue Planner is now in beta. Read the docs and try it out! Share your feedback on Discord.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

engine/access/rest/common/parser/address_test.go (1)

58-58: Consider aligning the assertion helper with strings.TrimPrefix.

Line 58 still uses strings.ReplaceAll(input, "0x", "") to compute the expected address string. While functionally equivalent for the current valid inputs (valid hex strings can never contain "x", so ReplaceAll and TrimPrefix always yield the same result), it is now semantically out of sync with how ParseAddress actually normalises the input.

♻️ Suggested update for conceptual alignment

-		assert.Equal(t, strings.ReplaceAll(input, "0x", ""), address.String())
+		assert.Equal(t, strings.TrimPrefix(input, "0x"), address.String())

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@engine/access/rest/common/parser/address_test.go` at line 58, Update the test
assertion to use strings.TrimPrefix to compute the expected normalized address
instead of strings.ReplaceAll; specifically, change the assertion that compares
address.String() (the line using assert.Equal and strings.ReplaceAll(input,
"0x", "")) to use strings.TrimPrefix(input, "0x") so the test semantics match
how ParseAddress normalizes inputs.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In `@engine/access/rest/common/parser/address_test.go`:
- Line 58: Update the test assertion to use strings.TrimPrefix to compute the
expected normalized address instead of strings.ReplaceAll; specifically, change
the assertion that compares address.String() (the line using assert.Equal and
strings.ReplaceAll(input, "0x", "")) to use strings.TrimPrefix(input, "0x") so
the test semantics match how ParseAddress normalizes inputs.

---

ℹ️ Review info

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4f88a2a and 010fa93.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• engine/access/rest/common/parser/address.go
• engine/access/rest/common/parser/address_test.go

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!