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

WIP : Introduce ISystemAccounts #3483

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

OnedgeLee
Copy link
Contributor

@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee commented Nov 13, 2023

Background

  • Predefined System Accounts are needed.
  • For better structure, they have to be found from IActionContext.
  • Some of them (ex : fee account) have to be defined on application.
    • For future, especially for PoS, needs to specify accounts for PoS is needed, and since they're related to FAVs, that specification may be happen on application.

Note

  • Predefined account address LegacyAccount has been renamed to DefaultAccount, to cover single account application case. What I'm thinking is,
    • Provide both of initialization action : single-account initialization and multi-account initialization.
    • Provide migration path of single-to-multi account initialization
    • With this scheme, word Legacy seems to be better to be called Default I think.
    • When use word Legacy, seems to be legacy one is deprecated, or obsoleted, but I think it's better to provide both.

Changes

  • Introduce ISystemAccounts
  • Add IActionContext.SystemAccounts
  • Introduce ISystemAccountsGetter
  • Add IBlockPolicy.SystemAccountsGetter
  • Remove WorldExtensions, and replace them with SystemAccounts
  • Migrate ValidatorSet from DefaultAccount to ValidatorSetAccount
    • Since ValidatorSetOperate is on application layer, most of work have to be done on app
    • Block improper access
    • Fix IBlockChainState, Explorer API
  • Replace ReservedAddress.Addresses to Context.SystemAccounts on tests
  • Make System Accounts cannot be set from outside of Libplanet? (ex : IAction.Execute() on app) -> a bit confused, does fee account needs to be mint from app actions?

@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee force-pushed the feature/system-accounts branch from a1e17de to d9eac1d Compare November 13, 2023 03:30
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee force-pushed the feature/system-accounts branch from d9eac1d to 6fb4b41 Compare November 13, 2023 03:34
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee self-assigned this Nov 13, 2023
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2023
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee requested a review from limebell November 13, 2023 08:07
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee force-pushed the port/3.6.0-to-iworld branch from c0c0284 to 65ba613 Compare November 13, 2023 08:18
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee linked an issue Nov 13, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee force-pushed the feature/system-accounts branch from dd3a013 to 5ac8c76 Compare November 13, 2023 11:47
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee changed the base branch from port/3.6.0-to-iworld to main November 13, 2023 11:47
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee force-pushed the feature/system-accounts branch from 5ac8c76 to cddf259 Compare November 13, 2023 11:49
@OnedgeLee OnedgeLee force-pushed the feature/system-accounts branch from cddf259 to 4cc7bc8 Compare November 13, 2023 12:05

This PR has 894 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra Large
Size       : +566 -328
Percentile : 96.47%

Total files changed: 72

Change summary by file extension:
.md : +6 -0
.cs : +560 -328

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@OnedgeLee
Copy link
Contributor Author

Will be handled on #3494, Closing

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Introduce proper structure for system account addresses
1 participant