feat: ledger #392
Merged
feat: ledger #392
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Closed
1 task
mudler
changed the title
jdutchak
changed the title
mudler
reviewed
Jul 2, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 2, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 2, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 3, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 3, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 3, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 3, 2024
mudler
requested changes
Jul 3, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changes overall looks good, however:
- Above nitpicks
- Please split the work of ci: Run unit tests in github actions runners #369 in a separate PR, as we don't seem to bring any unit test with these changes, no need to add it here.
- The title and description are copied verbatim from the issue feat: On chain ledger #380 which doesn't add much context. The PR title/description can be improved so that shows the changeset introduced with the PR. Please see https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ for guidance
- The test file added is called
e2ebut it is introducing unit tests, not e2e tests
mudler
reviewed
Jul 11, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 11, 2024
restevens402
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 12, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 12, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 12, 2024
mudler
reviewed
Jul 12, 2024
mudler
requested changes
Jul 12, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Few changes requested but ignored - some of them are nitpicks, but I think some of these needs to be addressed before merging:
- please split the release note changes to a separate PR
- update the PR title/description to match the changeset
- brittle pointer dereference
Otherwise looks good - nice job!
|
re: commitlint, if you rebase on top of |
mudler
reviewed
Jul 17, 2024
mudler
previously approved these changes
Jul 17, 2024
Signed-off-by: mudler <[email protected]>
mudler
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2024
mudler
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As part of #345 we have decided to go with our on-chain ledger rather then using another third party ledger.
The key takeaways are:
our own ledger that can store a limited set of data in the on-chain ledger. The ledger is implemented similarly to what EdgeVPN uses.
The ledger can be used to store a CID (content addressable ID) to reference a data that is carried over with the ledger. that for instance can be used to store big files or content that doesn't fit the ledger (see also #345 (comment) )
The ledger can be written only by trusted nodes, but can be read by all nodes of the network
For development, we can also point to an IPFS CID that is then pinned by the oracle nodes. That would allow us to quickly iterate in the short term while we develop a CID system inside our own protocol.
This card is about wrapping up the esperimental PR work in #350 and have it merged in the repository.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Using an external blockchain as a ledger (see discussions in #345)
Acceptance criteria
#350 is wrapped up and merged in the codebase