[move-lang] Change address value syntax.

[tnowacki]

• Change address value syntax from 0x to @<num>
• 0x hex values are now numbers
• Makes room for named addresses

Motivation

• @ allows for @ syntax for named addresses without shadowing issues from locals or constants

Test Plan

• New tests

[sblackshear]

Change address value syntax from 0x to @

From the code changes in the PR, it looks like 0x -> @0x--expected?

[tnowacki]

Change address value syntax from 0x to @

From the code changes in the PR, it looks like 0x -> @0x--expected

Bad rendering of the grammar comment in github. Should be @<num>. Numbers (u8, u64, u128, or no suffix) can now be hex or decimal, so <num> can be things like 255 or 0xFF. Addresses are then @<num> with no suffix on the number.

[sblackshear]

Change address value syntax from 0x to @

From the code changes in the PR, it looks like 0x -> @0x--expected

Bad rendering of the grammar comment in github. Should be @<num>. Numbers (u8, u64, u128, or no suffix) can now be hex or decimal, so <num> can be things like 255 or 0xFF. Addresses are then @<num> with no suffix on the number.

Edit: I think I get it, disregard :). IIUC, you can write either @0x55 or @55, but these correspond to different addresses.

Does that mean this

 public fun DIEM_ROOT_ADDRESS(): address {
        @0xA550C18
 }

could also be written as

public fun DIEM_ROOT_ADDRESS(): address {
        @A550C18
}

[bob-wilson]

could also be written as

public fun DIEM_ROOT_ADDRESS(): address {
        @A550C18
}

No, I don't think so. Without the 0x prefix, the "number" is expected to be a decimal value, and A550C18 is not a valid decimal number. But, you could use @173345816 as the equivalent decimal representation of 0xA550C18.

[bob-wilson]

This looks pretty good to me, but I found a few small things to tweak before you land

[bob-wilson]

Looks great. Thanks for the last round of changes

[tnowacki]

/land

[sausagee]

/cancel

we have a sev3 fix and need to cut the line

[sausagee]

/land

[github-actions]

Cluster Test Result

Test runner setup time spent 271 secs
Compatibility test results for land_d5960539 ==> land_6cc08c4f (PR)
1. All instances running land_d5960539, generating some traffic on network
2. First full node land_d5960539 ==> land_6cc08c4f, to validate new full node to old validator node traffic
3. First Validator node land_d5960539 ==> land_6cc08c4f, to validate storage compatibility
4. First batch validators (14) land_d5960539 ==> land_6cc08c4f, to test consensus and traffic between old full nodes and new validator node
5. First batch full nodes (14) land_d5960539 ==> land_6cc08c4f
6. Second batch validators (15) land_d5960539 ==> land_6cc08c4f, to upgrade rest of the validators
7. Second batch of full nodes (15) land_d5960539 ==> land_6cc08c4f, to finish the network upgrade, time spent 674 secs
all up : 869 TPS, 5228 ms latency, 5950 ms p99 latency, no expired txns, time spent 250 secs
Logs: http://kibana.ct-1-k8s-testnet.aws.hlw3truzy4ls.com/app/kibana#/discover?_g=(time:(from:'2021-05-04T23:16:02Z',to:'2021-05-04T23:38:51Z'))
Dashboard: http://grafana.ct-1-k8s-testnet.aws.hlw3truzy4ls.com/d/performance/performance?from=1620170162000&to=1620171531000
Validator 1 logs: http://kibana.ct-1-k8s-testnet.aws.hlw3truzy4ls.com/app/kibana#/discover?_g=(time:(from:'2021-05-04T23:16:02Z',to:'2021-05-04T23:38:51Z'))&_a=(columns:!(log),query:(language:kuery,query:'kubernetes.pod_name:"val-1"'),sort:!(!('@timestamp',desc)))

Repro cmd:

./scripts/cti --tag land_d5960539 --cluster-test-tag land_6cc08c4f -E BATCH_SIZE=15 -E UPDATE_TO_TAG=land_6cc08c4f --report report.json --suite land_blocking_compat

🎉 Land-blocking cluster test passed! 👌