[WIP] IAVL store wrapper

[kfangw]

Github Issue

Background

Solution

Possible Drawbacks

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #916 into master will decrease coverage by 0.59%.
The diff coverage is 42.97%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master     #916     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage   60.47%   59.88%   -0.6%     
=========================================
  Files         159      162      +3     
  Lines       11203    11452    +249     
=========================================
+ Hits         6775     6858     +83     
- Misses       3629     3792    +163     
- Partials      799      802      +3

Flag	Coverage Δ
#integration_tests_long_term	43.9% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
#integration_tests_node	39.89% <ø> (-0.68%)	⬇️
#integration_tests_retry	37.21% <ø> (+0.05%)	⬆️
#unittests	47.57% <42.97%> (-0.11%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/statedb/store/iavlstore.go	37.5% <37.5%> (ø)
lib/statedb/stateobject.go	39.6% <39.6%> (ø)
lib/statedb/statedb.go	47.41% <47.41%> (ø)
lib/network/http2_client.go	54.63% <0%> (-10.31%)	⬇️
lib/node/runner/node_api/api_node_item.go	53.84% <0%> (-10.26%)	⬇️
lib/block/transaction_pool.go	52.83% <0%> (-3.78%)	⬇️
lib/node/runner/util.go	71.42% <0%> (-3.58%)	⬇️
lib/node/runner/finish_ballot.go	43.86% <0%> (-1.42%)	⬇️
lib/node/runner/checker.go	73.36% <0%> (-0.23%)	⬇️
... and 2 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c71cd9b...5b2077b. Read the comment docs.

[anarcher]

How about that we make a branch for it? and make a pr of this branch (for master rebasing) :->

[kfangw]

@anarcher good idea. However, as you can see, this is in WIP.
When I finalize this feature (especially test cases) than I will make a branch what you want.

[anarcher]

IMHO, state.DB and StateDB are confusing by same naming DB. I would like have layering naming. e.g. State -(use)-> Store -(use)-> DB(leveldb,rocksdb).

[anarcher]

I am not clear that we have account (only) based states?
As you know, Cosmos style is that multi-substores. With this approaches, we can have accounts and contracts and storages each other. (not having account.Code and account.Storages).

Block.StateRoot = MultiStore's Roothash and each of substores can be accounts(one of StoreKVKey) and contracts, storages... (staking or gov...)

[kfangw]

I am not clear that we have account (only) based states?
As you know, Cosmos style is that multi-substores. With this approaches, we can have accounts and contracts and storages each other. (not having account.Code and account.Storages).

Block.StateRoot = MultiStore's Roothash and each of substores can be accounts(one of StoreKVKey) and contracts, storages... (staking or gov...)

@anarcher
Good idea.
Balance, Code, and Storage can be divided into substores.
But, for the Storage, each account can hold multiple (k,v) pairs.
The key may duplicated
To solve this, IMO, PrefixDB, PrefixStore may be adaptable.

/balance/(address, balance) pair for a data item
/code/(address, code) pair
/storage/(addressprefixed data key, value) pair

Is it makes sense?

This is a example code snippet

func TestMulti(t *testing.T) {
	db := dbm.NewMemDB()

	st := store.NewCommitMultiStore(db)

	key1 := sdk.NewKVStoreKey("balance")
	key2 := sdk.NewKVStoreKey("code")
	key3 := sdk.NewKVStoreKey("storage")

	st.MountStoreWithDB(key1, sdk.StoreTypeIAVL, nil)
	st.MountStoreWithDB(key2, sdk.StoreTypeIAVL, nil)
	st.MountStoreWithDB(key3, sdk.StoreTypeIAVL, nil)

	err := st.LoadLatestVersion()
	require.Nil(t, err)
	
	addrExample := []byte{0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0xFF}

	balanceStore := st.GetCommitKVStore(key1)
	codeStore := st.GetCommitKVStore(key2)
	storageStore := st.GetCommitKVStore(key3)
	theAccountStorageStore := storageStore.Prefix(addrExample)
	
	
	balanceStore.Set(addrExample, []byte("1000"))
	codeStore.Set(addrExample, []byte("print hello world"))
	theAccountStorageStore.Set([]byte("variableKey"), []byte("variableValue"))
	
	commitID := st.Commit()
	
	t.Log(commitID.Hash) //Hash for root Store
	t.Log(balanceStore.LastCommitID().Hash)
	t.Log(codeStore.LastCommitID().Hash)
	t.Log(storageStore.LastCommitID().Hash)
}

[anarcher]

My first about storage is that storage treated as []byte from storage type. ( accAddress -> storage bytes )

It means that we storage items (k/v) saved one byte array in store (with amino) So we don’t need to prefix if it cares like this. But l am not sure about it. We need to have times to consider it :-)