Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DEV-1079: Split validation into basic and dynamic #285

Merged
merged 94 commits into from
Mar 18, 2022
Merged

DEV-1079: Split validation into basic and dynamic #285

merged 94 commits into from
Mar 18, 2022

Conversation

askolesov
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@ankurdotb
Copy link
Contributor

@ankurdotb ankurdotb changed the title DEV-705: Slit validation into basic and dynamic DEV-705: Split validation into basic and dynamic Feb 18, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@ankurdotb ankurdotb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Discuss and check versionId deviation from
ADR. I know that when we launched, this wasn't correctly being set to the tx hash, and I would expect that as part of this validation, we validate it against the correct format that makes sense.

x/cheqd/types/stateValue.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@ankurdotb ankurdotb marked this pull request as ready for review February 23, 2022 16:07
ankurdotb
ankurdotb previously approved these changes Feb 23, 2022
@rosspower11 rosspower11 changed the title DEV-705: Split validation into basic and dynamic DEV-1079: Split validation into basic and dynamic Feb 25, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@ankurdotb ankurdotb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@askolesov Can I confirm that this is still WIP and not ready for review?

go.mod Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@ankurdotb ankurdotb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't have the chance to fully work through the logic here on allowed DID namespace, but basically it must match the one in the genesis file.

x/cheqd/types/validate.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@askolesov
Copy link
Contributor Author

While this is not in the list of changed files, can we please change the path in query.proto L14 from option (google.api.http).get = "/cheqd/cheqdnode/cheqd/did/{id}"; to option (google.api.http).get = "/cheqd/v1/did/{id}"; This is more consistent with the Cosmos SDK REST API naming convention.

Good point, changed

Also, at what point would/should that be changed from cheqd/v1 to a different version? Should it be increased in step with module Consensus version, or not?

It's up to us. I think we should change the version once we change models. + Ideally, we should keep previous versions for some time.

@askolesov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ankurdotb @Toktar I've answered all threads. Could you please review one more time? Thanks in advance!

ankurdotb
ankurdotb previously approved these changes Mar 17, 2022
Andrew Nikitin and others added 10 commits March 18, 2022 11:30
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
tests/e2e-complex/upgrade/common.sh Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/e2e-complex/upgrade/upgrade_and_check.sh Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ankurdotb
ankurdotb previously approved these changes Mar 18, 2022
@askolesov askolesov merged commit 1ad0c88 into main Mar 18, 2022
@askolesov askolesov deleted the DEV-705 branch March 18, 2022 11:35
@Toktar
Copy link
Contributor

Toktar commented Mar 18, 2022

Approved by @Toktar

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants