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

Upgrade lynx Coordinator #312

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Aug 26, 2024
Merged

Conversation

vzotova
Copy link
Member

@vzotova vzotova commented Aug 21, 2024

Type of PR:

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Documentation
  • Other

Required reviews:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

What this does:

High-level idea of the changes introduced in this PR.
List relevant API changes (if any), as well as related PRs and issues.

Issues fixed/closed:

  • Fixes #...

Why it's needed:

Explain how this PR fits in the greater context of the NuCypher Network.
E.g., if this PR address a nucypher/productdev issue, let reviewers know!

Notes for reviewers:

What should reviewers focus on?
Is there a particular commit/function/section of your PR that requires more attention from reviewers?

@vzotova vzotova self-assigned this Aug 21, 2024
@vzotova vzotova changed the title [WIP] Upgrade lynx Coordinator Upgrade lynx Coordinator Aug 22, 2024
@vzotova vzotova marked this pull request as ready for review August 22, 2024 13:28
deployment/params.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
scripts/lynx/upgrade_coordinator.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@derekpierre derekpierre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🎸

scripts/lynx/upgrade_coordinator.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
scripts/lynx/upgrade_coordinator.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@manumonti manumonti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! 👌

Copy link
Member

@cygnusv cygnusv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My only strong comment is regarding the JSON registry format, but apart from it looks good to me! The rest it's just nitpicking.

scripts/lynx/upgrade_coordinator.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines +147 to +161
address initiator,
uint32 initTimestamp,
uint32 endTimestamp,
uint16 totalTranscripts,
uint16 totalAggregations,
//
address authority,
uint16 dkgSize,
uint16 threshold,
bool aggregationMismatch,
//
IEncryptionAuthorizer accessController,
BLS12381.G1Point memory publicKey,
bytes memory aggregatedTranscript,
IFeeModel feeModel
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What about we create a dummy struct for this? Something like RitualView or along those lines.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I doubt it will look any better, but if you want I can do that

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you don't think it's worth it, then it's fine, let's keep it this way

@@ -1,7057 +1,7064 @@
{
"11155111": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There seems to be an issue here with the number of spaces for tabs, which is producing a huge diff. I'd prefer if the same indentation convention is preserved, so change history is better understood.

Copy link
Member

@derekpierre derekpierre Aug 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this was the pre-commit linter kicking in.

Initially, our registries used their original format without any pre-commit linter, and then once the pre-commit linter job kicked in, we didn't want to have a massive diff, and so we continued to ignore the linter update.

Some options:

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Side note, if we go with keeping the original format, @vzotova you can use the normalize_registry script to revert the file back to what it was before the linter kicked in.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

✔️

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Filed #319

deployment/params.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Derek Pierre <derek.pierre@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: David Núñez <david@nucypher.com>
@derekpierre derekpierre merged commit 9f58db9 into nucypher:main Aug 26, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants