refactor: set rollup-da to near original repo. go mod tidy#165
refactor: set rollup-da to near original repo. go mod tidy#165taco-paco wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
|
Noticed the blobs are not being properly decoded on int test. This is most likely the reason why: Nuffle-Labs/data-availability@f771f36. Now the blobs are only data and the blobs we were using prior to that are |
taco-paco
force-pushed
the
refactor/set-og-near-da
branch
from
3a91f12 to
e3b1eff
Compare
feat: commitment computed on indexer side. Should probably be done in contract itself
|
The issue is fixed by having commitment computed on the indexer side. I assume near-da contract will be updated in the future and maybe will include some commitment. Will see. |
|
|
||
| pub(crate) fn try_transform_payload(payload: &[u8]) -> Result<Vec<u8>> { | ||
| let submit_request: SubmitRequest = borsh::de::from_slice(payload)?; | ||
| let commited_blob: CommitedBlob = Blob::new(submit_request.data).into(); |
|
Overall everything seems great, what I don't like too much about this is that it's breaking, and integrating this would require full coordination between nodes and relayer. Even though we are under development, it'd be a lot better if we just try decoding it as a legacy blob and, if it doesn't work, we decode it as the current blob format, also keeping compatibility in the MQ data. |
|
|
Sadly with a running environment we need to worry about compatibility. It's not easy to coordinate updates, so breaking updates should be either scheduled or done in a way that's smooth - e.g. once every operator is running the backwards-compatible version, we can introduce the new version and nothing breaks. For this I do think we can do it with not much of an issue, so I'd prefer the latter approach. |
|
It’s not only about this PR but also about other breaking changes like this. If you choose migrations for when they can be avoided you will have a spaghetti code from one version to another. Right now there’s no reason for that. This pr can be postponed until scheduled update and then merged |
|
I agree, I don't think this one is urgent. Though my understanding is there can be a specific judgment on whether something needs to be breaking or not or how big the impact of a compatibility layer is. If it does result in a big rework, then not worth it, otherwise being a small adjustment it's better to advance with the feature and deprecate - then drop backward compatibility later. |
2 participants
This change is