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

Configuration tagging feature #31

Merged
merged 30 commits into from
Oct 13, 2021
Merged

Configuration tagging feature #31

merged 30 commits into from
Oct 13, 2021

Conversation

emmanuelm41
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@emmanuelm41 emmanuelm41 marked this pull request as draft October 11, 2021 16:04
Copy link

@nikkolasg nikkolasg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeaah ! I think you're getting there definitely ! I think we can push the logic even further, like really restrict it to the place where it's needed (beacon/) and that should be good !!

chain/verify.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
client/verify.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
client/verify.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
common/tagging.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
core/drand_control.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
key/group.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
chain/beacon/cache.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@emmanuelm41
Copy link
Member Author

@nikkolasg could you please check everything again? I made some big changes.

Copy link

@nikkolasg nikkolasg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice ! So the only thing for me is to try to remove as much as possible of the if/else that should directly call the verifier and we're good !!

I was hesitating to maybe see what code looks like if we put the verifier's logic inside the scheme, so we could have APi like scheme.VerifyBeacon() - only one interface instead of Scheme + Verifier - but then the logic would be outside of the beacon package which is not great as well (or maybe put the scheme inside beacon/ ). (just thinking out loud - i'm fine to go as it is now !)

chain/beacon/node_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@nikkolasg
Copy link

nikkolasg commented Oct 12, 2021 via email

@emmanuelm41 emmanuelm41 marked this pull request as ready for review October 12, 2021 14:32
utils/test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
key/group.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
common/scheme/scheme.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@emmanuelm41 emmanuelm41 merged commit 0e89b87 into unchained-beacon Oct 13, 2021
@emmanuelm41 emmanuelm41 deleted the tagging-system branch October 13, 2021 14:32
emmanuelm41 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2021
* create a scheme configuration system
* refactor unchain randomness feature to use scheme configuration, making it more easy to set up
* add a new CLI command to list scheme ids available
emmanuelm41 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2021
* v1.2.0

* update go version to 1.17

* update go and protobuf version

* add unchained beacon feature on code

* update tests with new feature

* split test jobs to check both chained and unchained randomness

* regenerate proto files

* fix linter issues

* Scheme feature and unchained randomness refactoring (#31)

* create a scheme configuration system
* refactor unchain randomness feature to use scheme configuration, making it more easy to set up
* add a new CLI command to list scheme ids available

* regenerate protobuf files

* apply go mod tidy

* add docs to new added code

* apply minor changes

* set default scheme on client cfg

* fix lint issue

* change CI job names

Co-authored-by: Will Scott <will@cypherpunk.email>
Co-authored-by: Will Scott <will.scott@protocol.ai>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants