chore: tidy follow-ups from the shielded withdrawal fee review

[QuantumExplorer]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Post-merge cleanup of the low/nit items surfaced by the final review of #3800 (already merged into v3.1-dev). All four are low/nit hygiene with no consensus impact — none was merge-blocking, so they are split into this small follow-up rather than reopening #3800.

What was done?

• Compile-time guard on MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT — fix(drive): charge fees for unshield and shielded withdrawal #3800 moved the consensus withdrawal floor into the versioned system_limits.min_withdrawal_amount, leaving the dpp MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT const as the v11 baseline that must stay in sync with SYSTEM_LIMITS_V1. Added const _: () = assert!(MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT == 190_000) on both definitions so a future dashcore ASSET_UNLOCK_TX_SIZE change breaks the build (a prompt to re-sync) instead of silently drifting the doc comment.
• Refreshed stale 190_000 test references in the address-withdrawal validator tests to the v12 floor (1_000_000), and lifted the valid-path helper input above the floor (2_000_000) so the happy path is genuinely above-floor rather than sitting on the boundary.
• Corrected stale "above MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT" comments in the shielded-withdrawal integration tests (the 1_000_000 recipient is now at the v12 floor).
• Locked the builders' returned fee against the wallet's independently-reserved exact_fee via debug_assert_eq! at all three shielded operation sites (fix(drive): charge fees for unshield and shielded withdrawal #3800 made the builders return the applied fee; nothing asserted it).

How Has This Been Tested?

cargo clippy --all-features --all-targets -- -D warnings clean across dpp / platform-wallet / drive-abci. Suites pass with 0 failures: dpp address_credit_withdrawal 25, platform-wallet shielded 23 (the live debug_assert confirms fee_used == exact_fee), drive-abci shielded_withdrawal 20.

Breaking Changes

None. No consensus or public-API behavior change (the const _ guard is compile-time only; the debug_assert is debug-build only).

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have added "!" to the title and described breaking changes in the corresponding section if my code contains any
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation if needed

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores

  • Added compile-time assertions to ensure withdrawal amount constants remain synchronized across the system.
  • Enhanced fee verification in shielded spend operations to validate calculated fees match reserved amounts.

• Tests

  • Updated validation test cases and comments to reflect current withdrawal amount thresholds.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

Pull request was closed or merged during review

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 0785fa2c-e7f6-4ead-82b2-5fb48dd3234b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5281936 and 228c144.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• packages/rs-dpp/src/state_transition/state_transitions/address_funds/address_credit_withdrawal_transition/mod.rs
• packages/rs-dpp/src/state_transition/state_transitions/address_funds/address_credit_withdrawal_transition/v0/state_transition_validation.rs
• packages/rs-dpp/src/state_transition/state_transitions/identity/identity_credit_withdrawal_transition/mod.rs
• packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/validation/state_transition/state_transitions/shielded_withdrawal/tests.rs
• packages/rs-platform-wallet/src/wallet/shielded/operations.rs

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR adds compile-time assertions enforcing that MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT stays synchronized with its computed fee value, updates withdrawal validation tests and comments to reference the v12 minimum boundary, and captures builder-computed fees in shielded wallet operations to verify they match reserved amounts.

Changes

Withdrawal Amount Assertions and Fee Synchronization

Layer / File(s)	Summary
MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT compile-time guards packages/rs-dpp/src/state_transition/state_transitions/address_funds/address_credit_withdrawal_transition/mod.rs, packages/rs-dpp/src/state_transition/state_transitions/identity/identity_credit_withdrawal_transition/mod.rs	Adds matching const compile-time assertions to enforce MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT == 190_000 in both address and identity withdrawal transitions, failing the build if the computed value changes due to asset unlock transaction size or fee-rate adjustments.
Withdrawal validation test updates and comments packages/rs-dpp/src/state_transition/state_transitions/address_funds/address_credit_withdrawal_transition/v0/state_transition_validation.rs, packages/rs-drive-abci/src/execution/validation/state_transition/state_transitions/shielded_withdrawal/tests.rs	Updates valid_withdrawal_transition() helper to use input amount 2,000,000, rewrites withdrawal-below-minimum test comments to reference v12 min_withdrawal_amount (1,000,000), and adjusts shielded withdrawal test comments to align unshielding_amount descriptions with the v12 minimum floor.
Fee capture and assertion in shielded wallet operations packages/rs-platform-wallet/src/wallet/shielded/operations.rs	Captures builder-returned fee_used in unshield, transfer, and withdraw operations and adds debug_assert_eq! checks verifying that the builder-computed fee matches the wallet's reserved exact_fee for the same action count.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• dashpay/platform#3800: Both PRs tie into the same MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT minimum-withdrawal floor—fix(drive): charge fees for unshield and shielded withdrawal #3800 changes shielded/unshielded withdrawal validation and fee accounting to enforce that net amount, while the main PR adds compile-time assertions and updates tests/comments to keep MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT/min_withdrawal_amount consistent with those fee/net calculations.

Suggested labels

ready for final review

Suggested reviewers

• shumkov
• thepastaclaw

Poem

🐰 A withdrawal's bound must hold,
MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT, true and bold!
Compile-time checks keep values tight,
Fee assertions shine so bright,
Constants sync'd—a hop delight!

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately reflects the main purpose of the PR—implementing post-merge cleanup and follow-up improvements following a shielded withdrawal fee review.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

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

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch claude/shielded-withdrawal-fee-review-nits

---

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.}

[thepastaclaw]

✅ Review complete (commit 228c144)

[QuantumExplorer]

okay

[thepastaclaw]

Code Review

Both agents reviewed the same diff and reported no findings. The PR is a small, well-scoped follow-up cleanup: compile-time assertions pinning MIN_WITHDRAWAL_AMOUNT, test comment refreshes to v12 floor, and debug_assert_eq! on shielded fee invariants. No consensus impact, no public API changes.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 87.16%. Comparing base (5281936) to head (228c144).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on v3.1-dev.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##           v3.1-dev    #3802       +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage     69.91%   87.16%   +17.25%     
=============================================
  Files            19     2627     +2608     
  Lines          2712   321557   +318845     
=============================================
+ Hits           1896   280299   +278403     
- Misses          816    41258    +40442     

Components	Coverage Δ
dpp	87.68% <100.00%> (∅)
drive	86.07% <ø> (∅)
drive-abci	89.48% <ø> (∅)
sdk	∅ <ø> (∅)
dapi-client	∅ <ø> (∅)
platform-version	∅ <ø> (∅)
platform-value	92.17% <ø> (∅)
platform-wallet	∅ <ø> (∅)
drive-proof-verifier	47.85% <ø> (∅)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

✅ DashSDKFFI.xcframework built for this PR.

• Workflow run: https://github.com/dashpay/platform/actions/runs/27077271784
• Artifacts: DashSDKFFI.xcframework (folder), DashSDKFFI.xcframework.zip, xc_checksum.txt

SwiftPM (host the zip at a stable URL, then use):

.binaryTarget(
  name: "DashSDKFFI",
  url: "https://your.cdn.example/DashSDKFFI.xcframework.zip",
  checksum: "bfa5983c63a27f54153af3aa21043fffe5db62f4b2fd1bbe42ea2c6a33d851c1"
)

Xcode manual integration:

• Download 'DashSDKFFI.xcframework' artifact from the run link above.
• Drag it into your app target (Frameworks, Libraries & Embedded Content) and set Embed & Sign.
• If using the Swift wrapper package, point its binaryTarget to the xcframework location or add the package and place the xcframework at the expected path.