Refactor: checking Insufficient reserve to use helper function

[tequdev]

High Level Overview of Change

Added helper function checkInsufficientReserve() for tecINSUFFICIENT_RESERVE check

Type of Change

• Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 99.28571% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 78.3%. Comparing base (173f9f7) to head (ba69dcd).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/PayChan.cpp	92.9%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           develop   #5844   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage     78.3%   78.3%           
=======================================
  Files          816     816           
  Lines        68887   68923   +36     
  Branches      8303    8301    -2     
=======================================
+ Hits         53943   53989   +46     
+ Misses       14944   14934   -10     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
include/xrpl/ledger/View.h	100.0% <ø> (ø)
src/libxrpl/ledger/View.cpp	94.4% <100.0%> (+<0.1%)	⬆️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AMMCreate.cpp	92.1% <100.0%> (+0.1%)	⬆️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AMMDeposit.cpp	96.3% <100.0%> (+0.1%)	⬆️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AMMWithdraw.cpp	95.8% <100.0%> (+<0.1%)	⬆️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/CreateCheck.cpp	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/CreateTicket.cpp	98.0% <100.0%> (ø)
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Credentials.cpp	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/DID.cpp	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/DelegateSet.cpp	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
... and 12 more

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mvadari]

Can you add tests for the unchecked codecov lines as well? I know it's not technically relevant to this PR, but while we're here we may as well, since it's pretty easy.

[vvysokikh1]

taking off my approval for now

[vvysokikh1]

check for amendment gating potentially required

[mvadari]

check for amendment gating potentially required

@vvysokikh1 Some context that may be useful: these refactors were originally included in the XLS-68 PR (to be opened). I suggested pulling some out and putting them in other PRs, as that has been a useful strategy in other amendments.

Perhaps we can comment out the changes wherever we think an amendment would be needed? Or are you concerned about all calls to this helper function?

[vvysokikh1]

check for amendment gating potentially required

@vvysokikh1 Some context that may be useful: these refactors were originally included in the XLS-68 PR (to be opened). I suggested pulling some out and putting them in other PRs, as that has been a useful strategy in other amendments.

Perhaps we can comment out the changes wherever we think an amendment would be needed? Or are you concerned about all calls to this helper function?

I'm concerned about the changes in the last commit. Previous commits where pretty obvious to me, but this last change is quite interesting. I'm not yet sure there's no change in behavior and I wanted to pull back my approval, it's just unfortunate that I don't know any other way except requesting a change :)

[vvysokikh1]

could you please add a check for accountSle being valid in every place you changed xrpLiquid to checkInsufficientReserve

[github-actions]

This PR has conflicts, please resolve them in order for the PR to be reviewed.

[godexsoft]

We recently merged a refactor to develop that enables clang-tidy's readability-identifier-naming. Your branch now has heavy conflicts that are largely mechanical. Below is a workflow that aligns your branch's naming with develop before merging, which should minimize the merge conflicts.

One-time setup

If you don't already have clang-tidy working in your env, on macOS:

brew install llvm@21
# Follow brew's hint to put $(brew --prefix llvm@21)/bin on PATH so run-clang-tidy is found.

Workflow on your branch (before merging develop)

1. Grab the new .clang-tidy from develop without pulling anything else. Sync your fork on GitHub first, then:

git remote -v   # should show 'upstream' among others; if not:
# git remote set-url upstream git@github.com:XRPLF/rippled.git
git fetch upstream
git checkout upstream/develop -- .clang-tidy

2. Reconfigure conan/cmake so compile_commands.json is fresh.

3. Apply renames for the files modified in your PR:

git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD upstream/develop) HEAD \
  | grep -E '\.(cpp|h|hpp|ipp)$' \
  | xargs run-clang-tidy -p build -fix -allow-no-checks
# or -p .build, or whatever your build dir is called

4. Build + test, then commit as a single dedicated commit:

cmake --build build -j8
git commit -am "refactor: Align identifier naming with develop"

5. Now merge develop:

git merge upstream/develop

Extra

Run clang-tidy once more after the merge to catch any stragglers introduced from develop's side:

run-clang-tidy -p build -fix -allow-no-checks src tests
# or -p .build, or whatever your build dir is called

[bthomee]

@tequdev what's the status of this PR? Would you be able to resolve the conflicts in case it is still relevant?

[mvadari]

@bthomee I think this is getting superseded by #7350

[bthomee]

@bthomee I think this is getting superseded by #7350

I'll let Tequ close this PR then in confirmation of the supersedence.