6678 upgrade zoe & zcf #7946
6678 upgrade zoe & zcf #7946
Conversation
Chris-Hibbert
force-pushed
the
6678-upgradeZoeZcf
branch
from
f06a231
to
63fc6fa
Compare
Chris-Hibbert
force-pushed
the
6678-upgradeZoeZcf
branch
from
63fc6fa
to
a7895a9
Compare
Chris-Hibbert
force-pushed
the
6678-intrinsicAtomicTransfer
branch
from
b8f88d7
to
14ac202
Compare
Chris-Hibbert
force-pushed
the
6678-upgradeZoeZcf
branch
from
a7895a9
to
9b24615
Compare
Chris-Hibbert
force-pushed
the
6678-upgradeZoeZcf
branch
from
9b24615
to
879104f
Compare
Chris-Hibbert
force-pushed
the
6678-intrinsicAtomicTransfer
branch
from
a7a4fed
to
a16493d
Compare
packages/zoe/src/zoeService/zoe.js
Outdated
| zcfBundleCap = bundleCap; | ||
| }, | ||
| e => { | ||
| console.warn(`unable to update ZCF Bundle: `, e); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why only warn? This seems severe to me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Zoe will continue to operate. The request probably had the wrong format of bundleID/bundleCap/etc. I'm amenable if you think it should be severe because the caller didn't get what they wanted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, something failed in this case. It's at least console.error and a siren.
If throwing doesn't break anything other than the requested operation (which already failed) then please throw.
| if (zoeBaggage.has(BUILD_PARAMS_KEY)) { | ||
| const { feeIssuerConfig, zcfSpec } = zoeBaggage.get(BUILD_PARAMS_KEY); | ||
| makeDurableZoeKit({ | ||
| ({ zoeConfigFacet } = makeDurableZoeKit({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this introduces a new concept, ZoeConfigFacet, which is the return type of makeDurableZoeKit.
Can we reconcile these names?
- call this
zoeKitand havegetZoeKit - define a new type
ZoeConfigFacetand declaremakeDurableZoeKitto return one of those - ??
I'm partial to #1 so the name matches the maker
There was a problem hiding this comment.
makeDurableZoeKit returns { zoeService, zoeConfigFacet, feeMintAccess }, but this call only needs the zoeConfigFacet because the others have already been returned.
I'll add a comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I misread. Thanks for the comment.
| if (zoeBaggage.has(BUILD_PARAMS_KEY)) { | ||
| const { feeIssuerConfig, zcfSpec } = zoeBaggage.get(BUILD_PARAMS_KEY); | ||
| makeDurableZoeKit({ | ||
| ({ zoeConfigFacet } = makeDurableZoeKit({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I misread. Thanks for the comment.
packages/zoe/src/zoeService/zoe.js
Outdated
| zcfBundleCap = bundleCap; | ||
| }, | ||
| e => { | ||
| console.warn(`unable to update ZCF Bundle: `, e); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, something failed in this case. It's at least console.error and a siren.
If throwing doesn't break anything other than the requested operation (which already failed) then please throw.
Chris-Hibbert
force-pushed
the
6678-intrinsicAtomicTransfer
branch
from
a16493d
to
b9c3ff2
Compare
makeStartInstance was being passed an accessor to retrieve zcfBundleCap from zoe's state. The accessor was being called once and the result re-used rather than calling the accessor every time in case there was a new value.
Chris-Hibbert
force-pushed
the
6678-upgradeZoeZcf
branch
from
9c4771e
to
3b65d03
Compare
closes: #7918
refs: #6678
Description
Changes to Zoe to enable upgrade of ZCF. Zoe needs to have a function in its creatorFacet that updates the ZCF bundle that will be used when starting or upgrading contracts. startInstance has to retrieve that value each time it is going to pass it to the kernel. (It used to be cached.)
Additionally, discovered and fixed an issue with persisting zcfMints.
Security Considerations
Maintain Zoe's guarantees. Make it possible for users to know what version of ZCF will be used for new contracts.
Scaling Considerations
N/A
Documentation Considerations
None
Testing Considerations
Tested in #7966 and #7969