docs: remove usage of canonical deployment for Blobstream X#1458
docs: remove usage of canonical deployment for Blobstream X#1458
Conversation
WalkthroughThe recent updates mark a pivotal shift in the deployment and operational narrative of Blobstream X. Key changes include a terminology update from "Non-canonical" to "New" deployments, a clearer role definition for the entity updating the Blobstream X contract, and refined details on deployment statuses and update frequencies. These modifications not only redefine Blobstream X's deployment phase but also clarify procedural responsibilities and operational expectations. Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 6
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (5)
- .vitepress/config.ts (1 hunks)
- developers/blobstream-contracts.md (1 hunks)
- developers/blobstream-x-deploy.md (1 hunks)
- developers/blobstream.md (2 hunks)
- developers/requesting-data-commitment-ranges.md (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .vitepress/config.ts
Additional comments: 13
developers/blobstream-x-deploy.md (1)
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [18-18]
The term "prover" is correctly used in the context of blockchain and smart contracts, but the static analysis tool flagged it as a possible spelling mistake. This is a false positive, and no change is needed here.
developers/requesting-data-commitment-ranges.md (9)
- 3-5: The update frequencies for Blobstream X deployments on Ethereum and other platforms are clearly specified. This is a positive change for clarity. However, ensure that the term "1 hour" is consistently used across the documentation to avoid confusion with "every hour."
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [9-9]
The documentation provides clear options for updating the smart contract at different cadences, which is helpful for users. This change enhances the documentation's utility.
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [14-14]
The term "Blobstream X" is consistently used, which aligns with the PR's objectives to update terminology. This consistency is crucial for clear communication.
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [20-20]
The example values for the
.envfile are a useful addition, providing clear guidance for users setting up their environment. This enhances the documentation's practicality.
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [23-23]
The term "Celestia" is correctly used in the context of blockchain and smart contracts, but the static analysis tool flagged it as a possible spelling mistake. This is a false positive, and no change is needed here.
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [27-28]
The documentation clearly specifies the required parameters for the
.envfile, which is helpful for users. This change enhances the documentation's utility.
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [29-30]
The inclusion of
functionId's from the Blobstream X contract is a useful detail that adds clarity to the process of deploying and using Blobstream X contracts.
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [36-36]
The documentation provides clear instructions for running the Blobstream X operator with local proving, which is helpful for users. This change enhances the documentation's utility.
- 1-7: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [44-51]
The section on requesting proof onchain provides clear instructions and highlights the differences between off-chain and on-chain requests. This is a valuable addition for users needing to understand the implications of each approach.
developers/blobstream-contracts.md (1)
- 112-112: The clarification regarding the
verifyAttestationmethod's functionality to verify a Merkle inclusion proof for a specific block header in the Celestia chain is a valuable addition. It enhances the documentation's accuracy and clarity.developers/blobstream.md (2)
- 21-21: The update to specify the entity responsible for posting updates to the Blobstream X contract as the prover/relayer instead of Succinct is clear and aligns with the PR's objective to clarify roles and responsibilities. This change should help readers understand the current operational model of Blobstream X more accurately.
- 21-21: The shift in terminology from "canonical deployments" to "upcoming deployments" is not explicitly highlighted in the provided code segments. However, the context around the deployment descriptions suggests a forward-looking perspective, which may implicitly align with the terminology shift. It's crucial to ensure that this new terminology is consistently used throughout the entire documentation to avoid confusion.
Verification successful
The terminology update from "canonical deployments" to "upcoming deployments" has been successfully applied in the documentation, with "upcoming deployments" being used consistently in the context provided. No occurrences of "canonical deployments" were found, indicating a complete transition to the new terminology.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for occurrences of "canonical deployments" to ensure they've been replaced. rg --type md "canonical deployments" # Search for occurrences of "upcoming deployments" to verify consistent usage. rg --type md "upcoming deployments"Length of output: 178
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- developers/blobstream-x-deploy.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 6
developers/blobstream-x-deploy.md (6)
- 1-1: The title "New Blobstream X deployments" correctly reflects the updated terminology. However, the static analysis tool flagged "Blobstream" as a possible spelling mistake, suggesting "Blob stream" as a replacement. Given the context, "Blobstream X" is a proper noun referring to a specific technology or product, so the original spelling is correct.
- 3-4: The introduction provides clear instructions for deploying Blobstream X to a new chain. The terminology "Gateway contract" is used correctly, aligning with the PR's objective to move away from "canonical Succinct Gateway contract." The spelling of "Blobstream X" is consistent with the product's naming convention, despite the static analysis hint.
- 1-9: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [10-12]
The instructions for deploying a new
SuccinctGatewaycontract are clear and direct readers to an external guide. The static analysis tool's suggestion to replace "SuccinctGateway" with "Succinct Gateway" is not applicable here, as "SuccinctGateway" is likely the specific name of the contract.
- 1-9: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [14-14]
The section on deploying a
BlobstreamXcontract correctly uses the updated terminology. The static analysis tool's suggestion to replace "BlobstreamX" with "Bloodstream" or "Bloodstreams" is incorrect, as "BlobstreamX" is the intended term.
- 1-9: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [16-16]
The guide link for deploying a new Blobstream X contract is correctly formatted. The static analysis tool's suggestion to replace "Blobstream X" with "Blob stream" is disregarded, as "Blobstream X" is the correct term.
- 1-9: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [18-21]
The instructions for running a local prover are clear. The static analysis tool's suggestion to replace "prover" with other words like "proper" or "prove" is not applicable, as "prover" is the correct term in this context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- developers/blobstream-x-deploy.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 7
developers/blobstream-x-deploy.md (7)
- 1-1: The title has been updated to "New Blobstream X deployments" which aligns with the PR's objective to transition away from "canonical deployments." This change is clear and correctly reflects the strategic shift in terminology.
- 3-4: The introduction provides a clear starting point for deploying Blobstream X to a new chain. It's concise and directly addresses the reader, which is good for clarity and engagement.
- 6-6: This line provides a useful check for users to avoid redundant steps if a
Succinct Gatewayalready exists on the chain. It's a good practice to include such checks to streamline the deployment process for users.- 8-8: The link to check the list of deployed
SuccinctGatewaycontracts is helpful for users. However, ensure that the URL is up-to-date and accessible. It might be beneficial to periodically verify the link's validity to maintain the documentation's usefulness.Verification successful
The URL https://docs.succinct.xyz/platform/onchain-integration#succinctgateway is accessible, as indicated by the HTTP status code 200. This confirms the link's validity and addresses the concern raised in the review comment.
* 1-11: > 📝 **NOTE** > This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [10-12]Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the accessibility of the URL. curl -o /dev/null -s -w "%{http_code}\n" https://docs.succinct.xyz/platform/onchain-integration#succinctgatewayLength of output: 117
Instructions for deploying a new
SuccinctGatewaycontract are clear and direct users to an external guide. Including external resources is useful, but ensure the external content remains relevant and accessible over time.
- 1-11: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [14-16]
The guidance for deploying a
BlobstreamXcontract is straightforward and links to an external guide. As with the previous comment, it's important to ensure the external guide remains accurate and accessible.
- 1-11: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [18-21]
Instructions for running a local prover are concise and link to a specific section within another document. This cross-referencing is helpful for users who need detailed steps. Ensure the linked section is kept up-to-date with any relevant changes.
4 participants
Overview
Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit