feat: CNS-962-user-spec-implementation #1505
Conversation
WalkthroughRecent updates encompass the introduction of the Changes
Poem
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.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (3)
x/spec/types/spec.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.gox/spec/types/spec_add_proposal.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.gox/spec/types/tx.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go
Files selected for processing (19)
- app/app.go (2 hunks)
- app/upgrades/upgrade_0_35_0.go (1 hunks)
- proto/lavanet/lava/spec/spec.proto (1 hunks)
- proto/lavanet/lava/spec/tx.proto (1 hunks)
- testutil/keeper/dualstaking.go (1 hunks)
- testutil/keeper/keepers_init.go (2 hunks)
- testutil/keeper/plan.go (1 hunks)
- testutil/keeper/spec.go (2 hunks)
- x/spec/client/cli/tx.go (6 hunks)
- x/spec/client/utils/utils.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/keeper/keeper.go (4 hunks)
- x/spec/keeper/msg_server_add_specs.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/keeper/spec.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/keeper/spec_test.go (2 hunks)
- x/spec/module.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/proposal_handler.go (3 hunks)
- x/spec/types/codec.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/types/message_add_specs.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/types/proposal.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- x/spec/proposal_handler.go
Additional comments not posted (25)
x/spec/keeper/msg_server_add_specs.go (1)
10-14: This implementation ofAddSpecsis clear and concise.Verification successful
Output:
+ ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'func (k msgServer) HandleSpecs($_, $_, $_) error { $$$ }'
The previous script did not return any results for the
HandleSpecsfunction. This could mean that the function is either not defined in the expected format or located in a different part of the codebase. To ensure a thorough verification, we should search for all function definitions namedHandleSpecsacross the entire repository.
The
HandleSpecsfunction is defined inx/spec/keeper/spec.go. To ensure proper error handling within this function, we need to review its implementation.
The
HandleSpecsfunction implementation has been successfully retrieved and reviewed. The function includes appropriate error handling for various scenarios, ensuring that any issues encountered during spec handling are properly managed and logged.Here are some key points from the
HandleSpecsimplementation:
- It checks if the creator is authorized to change the specs.
- It validates each spec and handles errors using
utils.LavaFormatWarning.- It re-validates all specs to ensure no conflicts arise from the modifications.
- It logs relevant events after successful operations.
Given this thorough error handling within
HandleSpecs, theAddSpecsfunction's error handling is verified to be robust.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify error handling in the `AddSpecs` function. # Test: Search for error handling patterns. Expect: Proper error handling in all scenarios where `AddSpecs` is called. ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func (k msgServer) AddSpecs($_, $_) ($_,$_){ $$$ err := k.HandleSpecs($_, $_, $_) $$$ return $_, err }'Length of output: 646
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of `HandleSpecs` to ensure proper error handling. # Test: Search for the `HandleSpecs` function implementation to review its error handling. ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func (k msgServer) HandleSpecs($_, $_, $_) error { $$$ }'Length of output: 91
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of `HandleSpecs` to ensure proper error handling. # Test: Search for the `HandleSpecs` function implementation to review its error handling. ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func (k msgServer) HandleSpecs($_, $_, $_) error { $$$ }'Length of output: 91
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for all definitions of the `HandleSpecs` function to ensure proper error handling. # Test: Search for all function definitions named `HandleSpecs` in the repository. rg 'func \(.*\) HandleSpecs\(' --glob '*.go'Length of output: 157
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the implementation of the `HandleSpecs` function to review its error handling. # Extract the implementation of the `HandleSpecs` function. ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func (k Keeper) HandleSpecs(ctx sdk.Context, specs []types.Spec, creator string) error { $$$ }' x/spec/keeper/spec.goLength of output: 4492
proto/lavanet/lava/spec/tx.proto (3)
12-12: The RPC methodAddSpecsis correctly defined.
18-21: TheMsgAddSpecsmessage is well-defined with appropriate field constraints.
23-24: Please confirm if the emptyMsgAddSpecsResponseis intentional and aligns with design expectations.Verification successful
The empty
MsgAddSpecsResponseappears to be intentional and aligns with the design expectations, as evidenced by its consistent treatment across the codebase.
proto/lavanet/lava/spec/tx.protox/spec/types/tx.pb.gox/spec/keeper/msg_server_add_specs.goScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the design decision behind the empty `MsgAddSpecsResponse`. # Test: Search for discussions or design documents related to `MsgAddSpecsResponse`. Expect: Confirmation that an empty response is intended. rg "MsgAddSpecsResponse" -A 3 -B 3Length of output: 7318
x/spec/types/codec.go (1)
Line range hint
16-22: The interface and service registrations are correctly set up inRegisterInterfaces.app/upgrades/upgrade_0_35_0.go (1)
27-27: The update toAllowlistedExpeditedMsgsis correctly implemented in the upgrade handler.Verification successful
The migration process in the
v_35_0upgrade handler is correctly implemented and there are no errors noted in the logs.
- The update to
AllowlistedExpeditedMsgsis correctly applied.- The migration registrations across various modules are handled properly.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the migration process in the `v_35_0` upgrade handler. # Test: Search for migration logs or errors in the system logs. Expect: Smooth migration without errors. rg "migration" -A 5 -B 5Length of output: 51166
proto/lavanet/lava/spec/spec.proto (1)
41-41: Addinguser_specas a boolean field inSpecis consistent with the protobuf standards and is correctly indexed. Good job on maintaining the sequential order of field numbers.x/spec/keeper/keeper.go (1)
24-24: The addition of theauthorityfield in theKeeperstruct and the corresponding updates in theNewKeeperfunction are correctly implemented. TheGetAuthoritymethod is a good encapsulation for accessing theauthorityfield.Also applies to: 34-34, 47-47, 57-57
x/spec/types/message_add_specs.go (1)
1-54: The newMsgAddSpecstype and its associated methods are correctly implemented. The methods cover essential functionalities like routing, signing, and basic validation, which are crucial for message handling in the SDK.x/spec/types/proposal.go (1)
10-10: The refactoring ofValidateBasicinto a method ofSpecenhances encapsulation and makes the validation logic more cohesive with the data it operates on.testutil/keeper/plan.go (1)
66-66: The addition of an empty string parameter tospeckeeper.NewKeeperis consistent with similar changes in other parts of the codebase. Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of this placeholder to maintain clarity for future maintainers.testutil/keeper/dualstaking.go (1)
70-70: The addition of an empty string parameter here is consistent with updates in other keeper initializations. It would be beneficial to add a comment explaining this parameter's purpose or future use.x/spec/client/utils/utils.go (3)
20-23: The updated fields inSpecAddProposalJSONalign well with the new functionality for handling spec proposals. This change enhances the structure's ability to carry more descriptive data about proposals.
25-27: The addition of theDepositfield inSpecAddProposalWithDepositJSONis a necessary update to handle proposals that include a deposit requirement. This change is logical and supports the new features in the system.
32-34: The updates toParseSpecAddProposalJSONfunction to handleSpecAddProposalWithDepositJSONare appropriate. The use ofDisallowUnknownFieldsenhances data integrity during parsing. Consider adding specific error handling for scenarios where theSpecnames are invalid or missing.testutil/keeper/spec.go (2)
60-60: Similar to other files, the addition of an empty string parameter tokeeper.NewKeeperhere is consistent with the broader codebase changes. A comment explaining this parameter's purpose would be helpful for future reference.
83-83: The use ofSpecAddProposalWithDepositJSONinGetASpecfunction aligns with the updated proposal handling requirements. This change ensures that the function can process the new data structure effectively.x/spec/module.go (1)
129-129: Register a new message server using theNewMsgServerImplmethod.This change aligns with the PR's goal to update the registration mechanism and ensure that the new specifications are correctly handled.
x/spec/client/cli/tx.go (4)
20-20: Import necessary libraries for transaction handling and flags.The addition of these imports is crucial for the new transaction commands introduced later in this file, ensuring that the functionality is supported by the necessary Cosmos SDK modules.
46-46: Introduce a new command to handle the addition of specifications.This is a direct implementation of the new feature as described in the PR. The command setup is standard and correctly integrates with the existing architecture.
114-114: Enhance the proposal submission command to include the newMsgAddSpecsmessage.This change is essential to support the new specification addition functionality. It correctly constructs the message and handles the transaction.
Also applies to: 119-120
133-189: Create a new CLI command for adding specifications.This command provides a direct interface for users to add or modify specifications, which is a key feature of this PR. The implementation is robust, handling potential errors and integrating with the transaction framework of the Cosmos SDK.
testutil/keeper/keepers_init.go (1)
256-256: The addition of a new parameter tospeckeeper.NewKeeperfunction aligns with the changes in the keeper's constructor to handle new module authority requirements.Ensure that the added module address is correctly used in the keeper's logic and verify its impact on the module's functionality.
x/spec/keeper/spec_test.go (1)
1084-1084: The unmarshalling of JSON intoproposalis done correctly.Ensure that the JSON structure matches the expected schema, especially since
DisallowUnknownFieldsis set, which will cause an error if any unexpected fields are present.app/app.go (1)
483-483: The change to include a new module address as a parameter in theConsensusParamsKeeperinitialization is consistent with the PR's objectives to support new specifications and transactions in the Lava network.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- x/spec/keeper/migrations.go (2 hunks)
- x/spec/module.go (3 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- x/spec/module.go
|
add unit tests and update README |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
x/pairing/keeper/msg_server_relay_payment.go (1)
[!TIP]
Codebase VerificationThe
userSpecparameter is not validated within thechargeCuToSubscriptionAndCreditProviderfunction before it influences the charging logic. Consider adding a check at the beginning of the function to ensureuserSpecis in a valid state (either true or false).
x/pairing/keeper/msg_server_relay_payment.go:
- Line 393: Add validation logic for
userSpecbefore proceeding with the charging process.Analysis chain
Line range hint
396-409: Validate theuserSpecparameter before proceeding with charging logic.The function
chargeCuToSubscriptionAndCreditProvidernow takes an additionaluserSpecparameter. It's crucial to validate this parameter before it influences the charging process. Consider adding a check at the beginning of the function to ensureuserSpecis in a valid state (either true or false), and handle cases where it might be undefined or null.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the `userSpec` parameter is being validated before it affects the charging logic. # Test: Search for the function usage and ensure `userSpec` is validated. rg --type go $'chargeCuToSubscriptionAndCreditProvider'Length of output: 415
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if `userSpec` is validated within the `chargeCuToSubscriptionAndCreditProvider` function. # Test: Search for validation logic related to `userSpec` within the function definition. rg --pcre2 --context 10 --type go 'func \(k Keeper\) chargeCuToSubscriptionAndCreditProvider\(ctx sdk.Context, project projectstypes.Project, relay \*types.RelaySession, cuAfterQos uint64, userSpec bool\) error' x/pairing/keeper/msg_server_relay_payment.goLength of output: 1180
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
x/spec/types/tx.pb.gois excluded by!**/*.pb.go
Files selected for processing (9)
- proto/lavanet/lava/spec/tx.proto (1 hunks)
- x/conflict/keeper/msg_server_detection.go (1 hunks)
- x/conflict/types/expected_keepers.go (1 hunks)
- x/pairing/keeper/msg_server_relay_payment.go (3 hunks)
- x/pairing/types/expected_keepers.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/client/cli/tx.go (6 hunks)
- x/spec/keeper/migrations.go (2 hunks)
- x/spec/keeper/spec.go (1 hunks)
- x/subscription/keeper/cu_tracker.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- proto/lavanet/lava/spec/tx.proto
- x/spec/client/cli/tx.go
- x/spec/keeper/migrations.go
- x/spec/keeper/spec.go
Additional comments not posted (4)
x/conflict/types/expected_keepers.go (1)
39-39: The addition of theGetSpecmethod in theSpecKeeperinterface is appropriate for the new functionalities described in the PR. It follows typical getter patterns in Go, which is consistent with Cosmos SDK practices.x/pairing/types/expected_keepers.go (1)
94-94: The modification to include theuserSpecparameter in theAddTrackedCumethod aligns with the functional requirements to handle user-defined specs differently. This is a sensible update given the context provided in the PR.x/conflict/keeper/msg_server_detection.go (1)
30-36: The addition of spec validation logic in theDetectionmethod is crucial for ensuring that only valid specs are used in conflict detection. This update enhances the robustness of the method by preventing erroneous or unauthorized specs from affecting the process.x/subscription/keeper/cu_tracker.go (1)
33-38: The modification to include theuserSpecboolean parameter in theAddTrackedCumethod and the conditional return based on its value are well-implemented. This change allows for more flexible handling of compute unit tracking based on the type of spec, which is consistent with the changes described in the PR.
| @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ func (k msgServer) RelayPayment(goCtx context.Context, msg *types.MsgRelayPaymen | |||
| utils.LogLavaEvent(ctx, logger, types.RelayPaymentEventName, successDetails, "New Proof Of Work Was Accepted") | |||
|
|
|||
| cuAfterQos := rewardedCUDec.TruncateInt().Uint64() | |||
| err = k.chargeCuToSubscriptionAndCreditProvider(ctx, project, relay, cuAfterQos) | |||
| err = k.chargeCuToSubscriptionAndCreditProvider(ctx, project, relay, cuAfterQos, spec.UserSpec) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding more detailed error messages or handling for the chargeCuToSubscriptionAndCreditProvider function.
This function now includes a userSpec boolean which affects the charging logic. However, the error messages could be more descriptive to help in debugging, especially since userSpec influences the flow. Consider enhancing the error handling to provide more context about the failure, particularly how userSpec impacts the outcome.
| @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ | |||
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to add CU to the subscription") | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| err = k.subscriptionKeeper.AddTrackedCu(ctx, sub.Consumer, relay.Provider, relay.SpecId, cuAfterQos, sub.Block) | |||
| err = k.subscriptionKeeper.AddTrackedCu(ctx, sub.Consumer, relay.Provider, relay.SpecId, cuAfterQos, sub.Block, userSpec) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure the new parameter userSpec is correctly documented and tested.
The addition of the userSpec parameter to the AddTrackedCu method modifies how CU tracking is handled. It would be beneficial to update the method's documentation to reflect this change and to ensure that unit tests cover scenarios where userSpec is both true and false. Would you like assistance in updating the documentation or creating the necessary tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- testutil/common/mock.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/keeper/msg_server_add_specs_test.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
x/spec/keeper/msg_server_add_specs_test.go (1)
12-46: Comprehensive testing of user permissions for spec additionsThe
TestSpecAddPermissionsfunction effectively tests various scenarios involving different users trying to add specifications, ensuring robust permission checks. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity and security of the system when handling specifications.
- The test covers scenarios for different users and authority levels, which is excellent for verifying the enforcement of permissions.
- Using
require.NoErrorandrequire.Errorappropriately asserts the expected outcomes, enhancing the reliability of the test.testutil/common/mock.go (1)
20-24: Enhanced mock spec creation with new fieldsThe additions to the
CreateMockSpecfunction, includingBlocksInFinalizationProof,AverageBlockTime, andAllowedBlockLagForQosSync, are well-integrated and crucial for testing the new functionalities related to specs. These fields seem to be designed to test the system's performance and reliability under different conditions.
- The use of
spectypes.APIInterfaceJsonRPCindicates an update to more accurately simulate the API interface in tests.- The inclusion of new fields like
BlocksInFinalizationProofandAverageBlockTimecould be instrumental in testing the system's behavior under various block conditions and timings, which is vital for performance testing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- x/pairing/keeper/msg_server_stake_provider_test.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
x/pairing/keeper/msg_server_stake_provider_test.go (1)
207-207: Standardize API Interface in Test ConfigurationAdjusting the
ApiInterfacesto a specific type (spectypes.APIInterfaceJsonRPC) standardizes the test setup. This ensures consistency in the test environment, which is crucial for reliable test results. However, ensure that this hardcoded value reflects actual usage scenarios or consider parameterizing it to increase test flexibility.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- x/spec/keeper/spec.go (2 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (3)
x/spec/keeper/spec.go (3)
18-18: Consider renamingUSER_SPEC_CONTRIBUTIONfor clarity.The variable name
USER_SPEC_CONTRIBUTIONcould be more descriptive to indicate its purpose, such asDEFAULT_USER_SPEC_CONTRIBUTION.
365-365: Add documentation forHandleSpecsfunction.Consider adding a docstring to explain the purpose and functionality of the
HandleSpecsfunction.
379-379: Ensure authority is correctly referenced.Make sure
k.authorityis correctly initialized and referenced. Ifk.authorityis not set properly, it could lead to unintended behavior.
| // re-validate all the specs, in case the modified spec is imported by | ||
| // other specs and the new version creates a conflict; also update the | ||
| // BlockLastUpdated of all specs that inherit from the modified spec. | ||
| for _, spec := range k.GetAllSpec(ctx) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Optimize re-validation logic.
Re-validating all specs could be optimized by only re-validating those that are directly affected by the changes.
| event: "Gov Proposal Refreshsed Spec", | ||
| details: details, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo in event string.
The event string "Gov Proposal Refreshsed Spec" contains a typo. It should be "Gov Proposal Refreshed Spec".
- event: "Gov Proposal Refreshsed Spec",
+ event: "Gov Proposal Refreshed Spec",Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| event: "Gov Proposal Refreshsed Spec", | |
| details: details, | |
| event: "Gov Proposal Refreshed Spec", | |
| details: details, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- x/spec/keeper/msg_server_add_specs_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/spec/keeper/spec.go (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- x/spec/keeper/msg_server_add_specs_test.go
- x/spec/keeper/spec.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (3)
- x/conflict/keeper/msg_server_detection_test.go (2 hunks)
- x/rewards/keeper/iprpc_test.go (2 hunks)
- x/rewards/keeper/providers_test.go (2 hunks)
Files not reviewed due to errors (1)
- x/rewards/keeper/iprpc_test.go (no review received)
Additional comments not posted (4)
x/conflict/keeper/msg_server_detection_test.go (2)
72-75: Add assertions to validateuserSpec.While
userSpecis being added to the specs, it would be beneficial to add assertions to ensure that theuserSpecis correctly set up and added.require.Equal(t, "USERSPEC", userSpec.Index) require.True(t, userSpec.UserSpec)
96-97: Enhance test case descriptions.The test case descriptions should be more descriptive to clearly indicate what each test case is validating.
- {"HappyFlow", ts.spec, ts.consumer, ts.providers[0], ts.providers[1], "", "", 0, "", []byte{}, 0, 100, 0, 0, &types.QualityOfServiceReport{Latency: sdk.OneDec(), Availability: sdk.OneDec(), Sync: sdk.OneDec()}, []byte("DIFF"), true}, - {"UserSpec", userSpec, ts.consumer, ts.providers[0], ts.providers[1], "", "", 0, "", []byte{}, 0, 100, 0, 0, &types.QualityOfServiceReport{Latency: sdk.OneDec(), Availability: sdk.OneDec(), Sync: sdk.OneDec()}, []byte("DIFF"), false}, + {"Valid Spec - Happy Flow", ts.spec, ts.consumer, ts.providers[0], ts.providers[1], "", "", 0, "", []byte{}, 0, 100, 0, 0, &types.QualityOfServiceReport{Latency: sdk.OneDec(), Availability: sdk.OneDec(), Sync: sdk.OneDec()}, []byte("DIFF"), true}, + {"Invalid Spec - User Spec", userSpec, ts.consumer, ts.providers[0], ts.providers[1], "", "", 0, "", []byte{}, 0, 100, 0, 0, &types.QualityOfServiceReport{Latency: sdk.OneDec(), Availability: sdk.OneDec(), Sync: sdk.OneDec()}, []byte("DIFF"), false},x/rewards/keeper/providers_test.go (2)
12-12: LGTM!The import statement for
spectypesis necessary for the new test function.
747-794: LGTM!The new test function
TestZeroBonusRewardsForUserSpecis well-structured and effectively tests that rewards are not given to providers who serve user specs.
…/lava into CNS-962-user-spec-implementation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- x/spec/README.md (2 hunks)
Additional context used
Markdownlint
x/spec/README.md
12-12: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
13-13: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines(MD032, blanks-around-lists)
56-56: Column: 1
Hard tabs(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
57-57: Column: 1
Hard tabs(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
58-58: Column: 1
Hard tabs(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
62-62: null
Fenced code blocks should be surrounded by blank lines(MD031, blanks-around-fences)
LanguageTool
x/spec/README.md
[grammar] ~76-~76: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably use “user specs” only once.
Context: ...ewards * conflicts cannot be opened for user specs * user specs contribuitions for contributors are fix...(PHRASE_REPETITION)
Additional comments not posted (3)
x/spec/README.md (3)
15-15: Ensure Consistency in DocumentationThe new
UserSpecconcept is correctly added to the contents section. Ensure that the documentation for this concept is detailed and consistent with the rest of the document.
58-60: Ensure Proper Documentation for New FieldsThe new fields
identityanduser_specare correctly added to theSpecstruct. Ensure that these fields are properly documented and their usage is clear.Tools
Markdownlint
58-58: Column: 1
Hard tabs(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
68-78: Fix Grammatical Errors and Improve ClarityThere are a few grammatical errors and areas where clarity can be improved in the new
UserSpecsection:
- Line 76: The phrase "user specs" is duplicated. Use it only once.
- Line 77: Typographical error in "contribuitions". It should be "contributions".
- * user specs cannot get boost and subscription rewards - * conflicts cannot be opened for user specs - * user specs contribuitions for contributors are fixed and cannot be changed + * user specs cannot get boost and subscription rewards + * conflicts cannot be opened for user specs + * user specs contributions for contributors are fixed and cannot be changedLikely invalid or redundant comment.
Tools
LanguageTool
[grammar] ~76-~76: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably use “user specs” only once.
Context: ...ewards * conflicts cannot be opened for user specs * user specs contribuitions for contributors are fix...(PHRASE_REPETITION)
Description
Closes: #XXXX
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changemainbranchReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
UserSpecconcept with specific limitations on boosts, rewards, conflicts, and contributions.Enhancements
userSpecparameter for better spec management.Specstruct with new fields:identityanduser_spec.UserSpecscenarios.Documentation
x/spec/README.mdto introduce the newUserSpecconcept and detail additional fields.