Permissioned Domains (XLS-80d) #5161
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #5161 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 77.9% 77.9% +0.1%
=========================================
Files 782 786 +4
Lines 66619 66794 +175
Branches 8157 8156 -1
=========================================
+ Hits 51872 52042 +170
- Misses 14747 14752 +5
... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes |
oleks-rip
force-pushed
the
pd_xls80
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4029ac5
to
4aede12
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You need to fix mac errors; these are happening because clang 15 does not fully implement construction of aggregates in the context where std::construct_at needs them to work, which is ret.emplace_back in src/test/jtx/impl/permissioned_domains.cpp, trying to create AuthorizeCredentials defined in src/test/jtx/deposit.h
Here's small repro with this compiler version, to help you experiment with workarounds https://godbolt.org/z/MKfYfsvan
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| for (auto const& credential : credentials) | ||
| { | ||
| if (!ctx.view.read(keylet::account(credential.getAccountID(sfIssuer)))) | ||
| return temBAD_ISSUER; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would love to hear @mvadari opinion on this (consistency with XLS-70 implementation): inside DepositPreauth::preclaim we return tecNO_ISSUER in a similar situation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should definitely be a tec error - it's in preclaim and it involves reading ledger state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Behavior aligned with XLS-70
| auto sz = credential.getFieldVL(sfCredentialType).size(); | ||
| if (!sz || sz > 64) | ||
| return temMALFORMED; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would love to hear @mvadari opinion on this (for consistency with XLS-70), but in DepositPreauth::preflight we also enforce that all credentials are unique.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Behavior aligned with XLS-70
Also, test sorting of permissions.
failing the transaction. Conforms to Credentials spec.
|
| BEAST_EXPECT(tx[jss::TransactionType] == "PermissionedDomainSet"); | ||
| BEAST_EXPECT(tx["Account"] == alice[0].human()); | ||
| auto objects = pd::getObjects(alice[0], env); | ||
| auto domain = objects.begin()->first; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
domain variable is unused
| std::unordered_set<uint256> duplicates; | ||
| for (auto const& credential : credentials) | ||
| { | ||
| auto const& issuer(credential[sfIssuer]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't you use the ~ operator here? Is it guaranteed to have an sfIssuer field all the time?
| params[jss::ledger_index] = jss::validated; | ||
| params[jss::permissioned_domain][jss::account] = alice.human(); | ||
| params[jss::permissioned_domain][jss::seq] = seq; | ||
| auto jv = env.rpc("json", "ledger_entry", to_string(params)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not able to figure out the correct format of the ledger_entry command. I'm confident that the sequence and account values are correct in the below input. Am I mis-spelling permissioned_domain value?
Response(status=<ResponseStatus.ERROR: 'error'>, result={'api_version': 2, 'error': 'malformedRequest', 'id': 'RequestMethod.LEDGER_ENTRY_94839', 'ledger_current_index': 234, 'request': {'api_version': 2, 'binary': False, 'command': 'ledger_entry', 'id': 'RequestMethod.LEDGER_ENTRY_94839', 'permissioned_domain': {'account': 'ra5dMgd2j5DhKpW2h9beFsTsq7EKfDs4JJ', 'sequence': 220}}, 'status': 'error', 'type': 'response', 'validated': False}, id='RequestMethod.LEDGER_ENTRY_94839', type=<ResponseType.RESPONSE: 'response'>)
High Level Overview of Change
Implements the object, transactions, and tests required by the spec: XLS-80d
Context of Change
New feature. Follows existing patterns for adding a new ledger object and related transactions.
Type of Change
.gitignore, formatting, dropping support for older tooling)API Impact
Requires an amendment.
libxrplchange (any change that may affectlibxrplor dependents oflibxrpl)