-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 276
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
[feature] #3231: Monolithic validator #3329
[feature] #3231: Monolithic validator #3329
Conversation
I'll squash commits into one when will be ready to merge |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## iroha2-dev #3329 +/- ##
==============================================
- Coverage 62.33% 57.76% -4.57%
==============================================
Files 169 162 -7
Lines 31218 31865 +647
==============================================
- Hits 19459 18408 -1051
- Misses 11759 13457 +1698
... and 28 files with indirect coverage changes Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
3eea83c
to
faac327
Compare
Signed-off-by: Daniil Polyakov <arjentix@gmail.com>
faac327
to
62d3e0e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Signed-off-by: Daniil Polyakov <arjentix@gmail.com>
03cb786
62d3e0e
to
03cb786
Compare
Signed-off-by: Daniil Polyakov <arjentix@gmail.com>
03cb786
to
a39235d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Daniil Polyakov <arjentix@gmail.com>
a39235d
to
031aa7b
Compare
Description
core
. Just one monolithic validatorvalidator
Upgrade
instructionPreviously we checked instructions of one tx on Iroha side. Now it's a work for Runtime Permission Validator. However Runtime Validator still can accept
Instruction
as input, because it's required for WASM smartcontracts and triggers.Transaction instructions need to be aplied to wsv in order to properly validate them (if one instrucion depends on another). This forces us to execute instructions on validator. It's kind of unexpected for a thing called Validator. So @appetrosyan suggests to rename it to Verifier, which will accept WSV and return the updated one. But I haven't done that in this PR, because such semantic change requires a lot of changes in all code base, including
block.rs
,main_loop.rs
and etc.I wonder what others think about that.
Linked issue
Benefits
Checklist
CONTRIBUTING.md