-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
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
feat(keystone): add capabilities and add nops as mcms proposals #15887
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nice, smaller than i expected
AER Report: CI Core ran successfully ✅AER Report: Operator UI CI ran successfully ✅ |
b1c81ba
to
c4e3e2a
Compare
c4e3e2a
to
a1634a1
Compare
if useMCMS { | ||
txOpts = deployment.SimTransactOpts() | ||
return addCapabilitiesMCMSProposal(registry, deduped, chain) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@MStreet3 Just fyi that I added some strategy helpers to handle MCMS in the workflow registry changesets I wrote:
if req.MCMSConfig != nil { |
Is this something that could be useful here to abstract away the complexity of MCMS?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, these could be useful, I hadn't seen them until now. Taking a quick look, the biggest blocker to using them in this PR is that the legacy functions modified in this PR don't return deployment.ChangesetOutput
. I wanted to avoid refactoring while changing the implementation. Adding the unit tests in this PR will make a refactor that changes signatures and uses these strategies simpler to verify.
Thoughts @krehermann
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A lot of this logic that's neatly tied into the strategies is currently repeated/split into chainlink-deployments
. So really to use these strategies would clean up both repos.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ticket to refactor for strategy https://smartcontract-it.atlassian.net/browse/CRE-109
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1ing since the strategies stuff requires a wider refactor that we shouldn't tackle here
c843e26
a1634a1
to
c843e26
Compare
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
the CapabilityRegistry for a chain is eventually transferred to a MCMS. this PR enables the creation of changesets that generate MCMS proposals for
AddNOPs
,AddNodes
,AddDONs
andAddCapabilities
calls.transaction data is generated using a simulated signer. unit tests are added yet scoped to just the MCMS proposal generation.
Requires
Supports