LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 29 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases 32 Packages Wiki Activity

[WIP] Unify and extend rpc methods to bid and sequence #303

Merged
bvbfan merged 8 commits from rpc_hash_hardfork into master 2019-09-06 22:03:39 +02:00
Conversation 2 Commits 8 Files changed 12 +1461 -816
bvbfan commented 2019-08-14 20:52:38 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

A bunch of updated rpc keys can lead to breaking changes in users, note it uses camelCase name notation, it can be changed as well. Notable changes:
nomalized_name -> normalizedName
txid -> txId
nHeight -> height
nValidAtHeight (valid at height) -> validAtHeight
nAmount -> amount
nEffectiveAmount (effective amount) -> effectiveAmount
total names -> totalNames
total claims -> totalClaims
total value -> totalValue
Most values in getclaimsfortx

A bunch of updated rpc keys can lead to breaking changes in users, note it uses camelCase name notation, it can be changed as well. Notable changes: nomalized_name -> normalizedName txid -> txId nHeight -> height nValidAtHeight (valid at height) -> validAtHeight nAmount -> amount nEffectiveAmount (effective amount) -> effectiveAmount total names -> totalNames total claims -> totalClaims total value -> totalValue Most values in getclaimsfortx
eukreign (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-14 20:52:38 +02:00
BrannonKing (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-14 20:52:38 +02:00
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-14 20:52:38 +02:00
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-21 03:10:40 +02:00
src/rpc/claimrpchelp.h
@ -0,0 +78,4 @@
" the latest active\n" \
" block will be used."
#define CLAIM_OUTPUT \
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-21 03:10:39 +02:00
Copy link

These are less readable than before. I actually used these quite often.

These are less readable than before. I actually used these quite often.
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-21 03:11:45 +02:00
src/rpc/claimtrie.cpp
@ -133,0 +208,4 @@
CTxDestination address;
if (ExtractDestination(coin.out.scriptPubKey, address))
result.pushKV(T_ADDRESS, EncodeDestination(address));
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-21 03:11:44 +02:00
Copy link

typo

typo
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-21 03:12:26 +02:00
src/rpc/claimtrie.cpp
@ -136,3 +280,4 @@
return count >= required && count <= required + optional;
}
void validateRequest(const JSONRPCRequest& request, int findex, uint8_t required, uint8_t optional)
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-21 03:12:26 +02:00
Copy link

should we cast this?

should we cast this?
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-21 03:12:45 +02:00
src/rpc/claimtrie.cpp
@ -185,3 +305,3 @@
CBlockIndex *blockIndex = BlockHashIndex(ParseHashV(request.params[0], "blockhash (optional parameter 1)"));
CBlockIndex* blockIndex = BlockHashIndex(ParseHashV(request.params[0], T_BLOCKHASH " (optional parameter 1)"));
RollBackTo(blockIndex, coinsCache, trieCache);
}
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-21 03:12:45 +02:00
Copy link

casting again, maybe the type needs to be updated?

casting again, maybe the type needs to be updated?
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-21 03:14:37 +02:00
src/rpc/claimtrie.cpp
@ -263,3 +345,3 @@
if (!request.params.empty()) {
CBlockIndex *blockIndex = BlockHashIndex(ParseHashV(request.params[0], "blockhash (optional parameter 1)"));
CBlockIndex* blockIndex = BlockHashIndex(ParseHashV(request.params[0], T_BLOCKHASH " (optional parameter 1)"));
RollBackTo(blockIndex, coinsCache, trieCache);
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-21 03:14:37 +02:00
Copy link

nice catch!

nice catch!
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-21 03:20:51 +02:00
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) left a comment
Copy link

Lots of changes here. I think it would be nice to just test the changes by validating the output between versions. It is largly a refactor of code, would have been nice to separate the refactor from the modifications required for bid and sequence. Is that possible?

Lots of changes here. I think it would be nice to just test the changes by validating the output between versions. It is largly a refactor of code, would have been nice to separate the refactor from the modifications required for bid and sequence. Is that possible?
bvbfan commented 2019-08-21 16:23:56 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Changes are breaking since i unify outputs which makes changes to the fields.

Changes are breaking since i unify outputs which makes changes to the fields.
bvbfan (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-21 16:25:25 +02:00
src/rpc/claimrpchelp.h
@ -0,0 +78,4 @@
" the latest active\n" \
" block will be used."
#define CLAIM_OUTPUT \
bvbfan (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-21 16:25:25 +02:00
Copy link

I think is more readable now :) You see it on one place and there is no need to verify it's same or not and it's correct on every place or not.

I think is more readable now :) You see it on one place and there is no need to verify it's same or not and it's correct on every place or not.
bvbfan (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-21 16:28:18 +02:00
src/rpc/claimtrie.cpp
@ -136,3 +280,4 @@
return count >= required && count <= required + optional;
}
void validateRequest(const JSONRPCRequest& request, int findex, uint8_t required, uint8_t optional)
bvbfan (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-21 16:28:18 +02:00
Copy link

UniValue does not provide an uint32 constructor which can lead to ambiguous.

UniValue does not provide an uint32 constructor which can lead to ambiguous.
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-23 03:50:04 +02:00
src/rpc/claimrpchelp.h
@ -0,0 +78,4 @@
" the latest active\n" \
" block will be used."
#define CLAIM_OUTPUT \
tiger5226 (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-23 03:50:03 +02:00
Copy link

I was also looking at it through the PR lens. Will look at it in the code base too.

I was also looking at it through the PR lens. Will look at it in the code base too.
bvbfan (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-23 13:23:17 +02:00
src/rpc/claimrpchelp.h
@ -0,0 +78,4 @@
" the latest active\n" \
" block will be used."
#define CLAIM_OUTPUT \
bvbfan (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-08-23 13:23:17 +02:00
Copy link

Overall code base is way better to me, logic and help message are separate which makes logic to be easy follow, OTOH help message are minimize.

Overall code base is way better to me, logic and help message are separate which makes logic to be easy follow, OTOH help message are minimize.
BrannonKing commented 2019-09-05 23:50:58 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

The cli help (that shows all the available methods) isn't showing the parameters for the methods in rpc/claimtrie.cpp. It's like the argNames are ignored in that file.

The cli help (that shows all the available methods) isn't showing the parameters for the methods in rpc/claimtrie.cpp. It's like the argNames are ignored in that file.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
lbrynaut
eukreign
BrannonKing
Labels
Clear labels   
area: devops

   
area: discovery

   
area: docs

   
area: livestream

   
area: proposal

Work is part of a proposal

  
consider soon

Discuss this issue at the next planning meeting, then remove this label

  
Epic

   
good first issue

   
hacktoberfest

Welcome to Hacktoberfest

  
hard fork

   
help wanted

   
icebox

Long-term storage

  
Invalid

   
level: 0

   
level: 1

No knowledge of the existing code required

  
level: 2

Some knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 3

Significant knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 4

Intimate knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
needs: exploration

Solution unclear, needs research

  
needs: grooming

Issue needs to be groomed before work can start

  
needs: priority

Priority level needs to be defined

  
needs: repro

Issue needs step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce in latest code

  
needs: tech design

Needs technical design signoff before implementation can begin

  
on hold

Temporarily paused

  
priority: blocker

Issue is blocking release, do ASAP

  
priority: high

Work needs to be moved into sprint ASAP

  
priority: low

Work should be done but can stay in the backlog for now

  
priority: medium

Work needs to be done within 2-3 sprints

  
resilience

   
soft fork

   
Tom's Wishlist

   
type: bug

Existing functionality is wrong or broken

  
type: discussion

A conversation. No specific changes requested

  
type: improvement

Existing (or partially existing) functionality needs to be changed

  
type: new feature

New functionality that does not exist yet

  
type: refactor

Minimal user-visible changes, but significant internal work

  
type: task

Either work that's not related to the code, or a small chore that does not fit into other categories

  
type: testing

Solution needs additional user testing

  
unplanned

Work that was not planned into the spirnt, took priority over planned work

  
work in progress

The proposed solution is still incomplete.

No labels
area: devops
area: discovery
area: docs
area: livestream
area: proposal
consider soon
Epic
good first issue
hacktoberfest
hard fork
help wanted
icebox
Invalid
level: 0
level: 1
level: 2
level: 3
level: 4
needs: exploration
needs: grooming
needs: priority
needs: repro
needs: tech design
on hold
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
resilience
soft fork
Tom's Wishlist
type: bug
type: discussion
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
type: testing
unplanned
work in progress
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd#303
No description provided.
Delete branch "rpc_hash_hardfork"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?