refactor: platform version refactoring into sub versions #2269
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces extensive changes to the version management system within the Rust project. It involves the restructuring of various modules and the introduction of new versioning constants across multiple components, including DPP (Decentralized Payment Protocol) and Drive ABCI (Application Blockchain Interface). Key modifications include the removal of outdated structures, the addition of new modules for asset locks, contracts, costs, and voting, and the reorganization of constants for better clarity and modularity. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration 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: 28
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (87)
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_costs_versions/mod.rs (2)
3-3: Add documentation for thev1module.The
v1module declaration is appropriate for version-specific implementations. However, consider adding a brief documentation comment explaining its purpose and contents.You could add a doc comment like this:
/// Contains the implementation of DPP costs for version 1. pub mod v1;
5-8: Add documentation for theDPPCostsVersionsstruct and its field.The
DPPCostsVersionsstruct is well-defined with appropriate derived traits. However, it would benefit from documentation explaining its purpose and the significance of thesignature_verifyfield.Consider adding doc comments like this:
/// Represents the versions of various cost-related features in DPP. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DPPCostsVersions { /// The version of the signature verification cost feature. pub signature_verify: FeatureVersion, }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_asset_lock_versions/mod.rs (2)
3-3: LGTM: Good use of versioned submodule.The declaration of the
v1submodule aligns well with the PR objective of refactoring into sub-versions. This structure allows for better organization and potential future version additions.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the
v1submodule for improved code documentation.
5-8: LGTM: Well-defined struct with appropriate derive macros.The
DPPAssetLockVersionsstruct is clearly defined with a single fieldreduced_asset_lock_value. The use ofClone,Debug, andDefaultderive macros is appropriate for this type of struct.Consider adding a doc comment (
///) above the struct definition to explain its purpose and the significance of thereduced_asset_lock_valuefield. This would enhance code documentation and make it easier for other developers to understand the struct's role in the asset lock versioning system.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_withdrawal_constants/mod.rs (1)
4-8: Well-structured constant encapsulation with appropriate traits.The
DriveAbciWithdrawalConstantsstruct effectively encapsulates version-specific constants, aligning with the PR's refactoring goals. The derived traits (Clone,Debug,Default) enhance usability and debugging capabilities.Consider adding documentation comments to explain the purpose of each field and the struct itself. This would improve code clarity and maintainability. For example:
/// Constants related to Drive ABCI withdrawals. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DriveAbciWithdrawalConstants { /// Number of blocks after which a withdrawal expires. pub core_expiration_blocks: u32, /// Maximum number of expired locks to clean up in a single operation. pub cleanup_expired_locks_of_withdrawal_amounts_limit: u16, }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
1-5: LGTM! Consider adding documentation.The constant
DPP_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1is correctly defined and initialized. The code structure is clean and aligns with the PR objectives of refactoring the platform version into sub-versions.Consider adding a documentation comment above the constant to explain its purpose and the significance of the field values. This would enhance code readability and maintainability. For example:
/// Represents the initial version (V1) of DPP method versions. /// /// - `epoch_core_reward_credits_for_distribution`: Set to 0, indicating [explain significance]. /// - `daily_withdrawal_limit`: Set to 0, indicating [explain significance]. pub const DPP_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1: DPPMethodVersions = DPPMethodVersions { // ... [rest of the code remains the same]packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_method_versions/mod.rs (3)
3-3: LGTM: Good versioning strategy. Consider adding a brief comment.The
v1module declaration supports a clear versioning strategy. This approach will facilitate the addition of future versions if needed.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the
v1module, e.g.:/// Module containing version 1 specific constants and implementations pub mod v1;
5-9: LGTM: Well-structured versioning. Add documentation for improved clarity.The
DPPMethodVersionsstruct is well-defined and uses appropriate types and traits.To improve code clarity, consider adding documentation for the struct and its fields:
/// Represents the versions of different DPP methods #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DPPMethodVersions { /// Version of the epoch core reward credits for distribution method pub epoch_core_reward_credits_for_distribution: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the daily withdrawal limit method pub daily_withdrawal_limit: FeatureVersion, }
1-9: Overall: Well-structured module for DPP method versioning.This new file introduces a clean and modular approach to managing DPP method versions, aligning well with the PR's refactoring objectives. The structure allows for easy extension and maintenance in the future.
As the project evolves, consider the following:
- Implement unit tests for this module to ensure version integrity.
- Document the versioning strategy in a central location (e.g., README or separate documentation file) for easier onboarding and maintenance.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_factory_versions/mod.rs (1)
5-9: LGTM: Well-structured version management struct.The
DPPFactoryVersionsstruct is well-defined with appropriate derive macros and clear field names. It effectively encapsulates version information for data contract and document factory structures.Consider adding a brief doc comment to the struct to explain its purpose and usage. For example:
/// Represents version information for DPP factory components. /// /// This struct holds version data for the data contract factory and document factory structures. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DPPFactoryVersions { // ... existing fields ... }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_structure_version/mod.rs (1)
5-10: LGTM: Well-structuredDriveStructureVersion, consider adding documentation.The
DriveStructureVersionstruct is well-defined with appropriate derive macros and clear field names. It effectively encapsulates version bounds for different aspects of the drive structure.Consider adding documentation comments to the struct and its fields to improve code clarity:
/// Represents the version bounds for different components of the drive structure. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DriveStructureVersion { /// Version bounds for document indexes. pub document_indexes: FeatureVersionBounds, /// Version bounds for identity indexes. pub identity_indexes: FeatureVersionBounds, /// Version bounds for pools. pub pools: FeatureVersionBounds, }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_withdrawal_constants/v2.rs (1)
3-7: LGTM: Constant definition is clear and follows naming conventions.The constant
DRIVE_ABCI_WITHDRAWAL_CONSTANTS_V2is well-defined and follows proper naming conventions for constants in Rust. The version number in the name aligns with the PR's objective of refactoring platform versions.Consider adding a brief doc comment above the constant to explain its purpose and the significance of the V2 version. This would enhance code readability and maintainability.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_voting_versions/mod.rs (2)
3-4: LGTM: Versioned sub-modules align with refactoring objectives.The use of
v1andv2sub-modules supports the goal of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions, allowing for better organization and future versioning.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the differences between v1 and v2, or the criteria for introducing new versions.
6-11: LGTM: Struct definition is well-structured.The
DPPVotingVersionsstruct is appropriately defined with fields for managing voting-related version information. The use ofu64for time durations andFeatureVersionfor version tracking is suitable.Consider adding documentation comments (///) for the struct and its fields to improve code clarity and maintainability. For example:
/// Represents the configuration for DPP voting versions. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DPPVotingVersions { /// Default duration for vote polls on the mainnet in milliseconds. pub default_vote_poll_time_duration_mainnet_ms: u64, /// Default duration for vote polls on test networks in milliseconds. pub default_vote_poll_time_duration_test_network_ms: u64, /// Version of the stored information related to contested document vote polls. pub contested_document_vote_poll_stored_info_version: FeatureVersion, }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-12: Well-structured module for DPP state transition conversion versions.The overall structure and organization of this module are well-designed. The use of
FeatureVersionand the creation of a dedicated struct for state transition conversions align well with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions.Consider adding documentation comments (///) for the
DPPStateTransitionConversionVersionsstruct and its fields to improve code readability and maintainability. For example:/// Represents the versions of different DPP state transition conversions. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions { /// Version for converting identity to identity create transition. pub identity_to_identity_create_transition: FeatureVersion, // ... (add comments for other fields) }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_identity_versions/v1.rs (2)
5-12: LGTM: Constant declaration is well-structured. Consider adding documentation.The
IDENTITY_VERSIONS_V1constant is correctly defined and structured. However, to improve clarity and maintainability, consider the following suggestions:
- Add documentation comments explaining the purpose of this constant and the significance of the version numbers.
- If the version numbers are placeholders, consider adding a TODO comment to update them when actual versions are determined.
Here's an example of how you might add documentation:
/// Defines the version information for identity-related structures in DPP. /// /// All versions are currently set to 0, which may indicate: /// - This is the initial version /// - These are placeholder values to be updated later /// /// TODO: Update version numbers when actual versions are determined. pub const IDENTITY_VERSIONS_V1: DPPIdentityVersions = DPPIdentityVersions { // ... (rest of the constant definition) };
1-12: Summary: Changes align with PR objectives, consider adding more documentation.The introduction of
IDENTITY_VERSIONS_V1aligns well with the PR's objective of refactoring the platform version into sub-versions. This constant provides a clear structure for managing identity-related version information, which should help reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.To further enhance the code quality and maintainability:
- Consider adding comprehensive documentation explaining the purpose and usage of this constant within the larger versioning system.
- If these are initial or placeholder versions, it might be helpful to add a TODO comment or create a GitHub issue to track when and how these versions should be updated in the future.
Overall, this change contributes positively to the restructuring effort described in the PR objectives.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_structure_versions/v1.rs (1)
3-11: Add documentation for the constant and its fields.Consider adding Rust doc comments to the
DRIVE_ABCI_STRUCTURE_VERSIONS_V1constant and its fields. This will enhance clarity and improve the overall documentation of the codebase, aligning with best practices for Rust projects.Example:
/// Represents the structure versions for Drive ABCI v1. pub const DRIVE_ABCI_STRUCTURE_VERSIONS_V1: DriveAbciStructureVersions = DriveAbciStructureVersions { /// Version of the platform state structure. platform_state_structure: 0, // ... (add comments for other fields) };packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_structure_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-1: Consider adding documentation for thev1module.Adding a doc comment to describe the purpose and contents of the
v1module would improve code clarity and maintainability.You can add a doc comment like this:
/// Module containing version 1 of the Drive ABCI structure versions. pub mod v1;
5-13: Add documentation to the struct and its fields.To improve code clarity and maintainability, consider adding doc comments to the
DriveAbciStructureVersionsstruct and its fields. This aligns with the best practices for Rust documentation.Here's an example of how you could add documentation:
/// Represents the versions of various Drive ABCI structures. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DriveAbciStructureVersions { /// Version of the platform state structure. pub platform_state_structure: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the default platform state for saving structure. pub platform_state_for_saving_structure_default: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the state transition execution context. pub state_transition_execution_context: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the commit structure. pub commit: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the masternode structure. pub masternode: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the signature verification quorum set. pub signature_verification_quorum_set: FeatureVersion, }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/v1.rs (1)
3-9: LGTM: Constant declaration is well-structured. Consider adding documentation.The constant
STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V1is correctly declared and initialized. The use of a version number in the constant name (V1) is a good practice for managing different versions of the platform.Consider adding a doc comment to explain the purpose of this constant and why all versions are set to 0. This would improve code readability and maintainability. For example:
/// Defines the initial (V1) state transition conversion versions for the DPP. /// All versions are set to 0, representing the starting point for version tracking. pub const STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V1: DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions = ...packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/v2.rs (1)
3-9: LGTM: Constant declaration is well-structured. Consider adding explanatory comments.The constant
STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V2is correctly declared and initialized. It aligns with the PR objective of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The structure is clear and follows good practices.Consider adding a brief comment explaining why
identity_to_identity_withdrawal_transitionis set to 1 while others are 0. This would enhance code readability and maintainability. For example:pub const STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V2: DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions = DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions { identity_to_identity_create_transition: 0, identity_to_identity_top_up_transition: 0, // Version 1 due to [brief explanation of the change] identity_to_identity_withdrawal_transition: 1, identity_to_identity_create_transition_with_signer: 0, };packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_identity_versions/mod.rs (3)
5-11: LGTM: Well-structuredDPPIdentityVersionsstruct.The
DPPIdentityVersionsstruct is well-designed, encapsulating different aspects of identity versioning. The derived traits are appropriate for this use case.Consider adding a brief doc comment for the
identity_key_structure_versionandidentity_key_type_method_versionsfields to improve clarity:/// The structure version of the Identity keys pub identity_key_structure_version: FeatureVersion, /// Versions for different Identity key type methods pub identity_key_type_method_versions: IdentityKeyTypeMethodVersions,
13-17: LGTM: Well-definedIdentityKeyTypeMethodVersionsstruct.The
IdentityKeyTypeMethodVersionsstruct is well-designed, handling versioning for different types of key data. The derived traits are appropriate and consistent with theDPPIdentityVersionsstruct.Consider adding brief doc comments for the fields to improve clarity:
/// Version for the random public key data method pub random_public_key_data: FeatureVersion, /// Version for the random public and private key data method pub random_public_and_private_key_data: FeatureVersion,
1-17: Great job on refactoring identity versioning!This new file aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The introduction of
DPPIdentityVersionsandIdentityKeyTypeMethodVersionsstructs provides a clear and modular approach to managing identity-related versioning. The code is consistent, well-structured, and focuses on improving the organization without introducing functional changes.As the project evolves, consider creating a trait for version structures if similar patterns emerge in other components. This could further enhance modularity and consistency across the codebase.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_method_versions/mod.rs (2)
5-8: LGTM: Well-structured versioning container.The
DPPStateTransitionMethodVersionsstruct is well-defined with appropriate trait derivations. It effectively encapsulates versions related to public key creation methods.Consider adding a brief doc comment to explain the purpose of this struct, e.g.:
/// Represents versions of state transition methods in DPP, specifically for public key creation. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DPPStateTransitionMethodVersions { // ... existing code ... }
10-18: LGTM: Comprehensive versioning for public key creation methods.The
PublicKeyInCreationMethodVersionsstruct is well-structured, usingFeatureVersionconsistently for all fields. This approach aligns well with the PR objectives of reducing code duplication and improving maintainability.Consider adding a brief doc comment to explain the purpose of this struct and its fields, e.g.:
/// Represents versions of various features related to public key creation methods in DPP. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct PublicKeyInCreationMethodVersions { /// Version for the method of creating from a public key signed with a private key. pub from_public_key_signed_with_private_key: FeatureVersion, // ... add similar comments for other fields ... }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/mod.rs (1)
12-19: Add Rust doc comments to enhance documentation.The
DriveAbciVersionstruct effectively combines all aspects of Drive ABCI versioning. However, it's missing Rust doc comments for the struct and its fields. Adding these comments would improve the code's documentation and make it easier for other developers to understand the purpose of this struct and its components.Consider adding doc comments like this:
/// Represents the versioning information for Drive ABCI components. #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] pub struct DriveAbciVersion { /// Versions of Drive ABCI structures. pub structs: DriveAbciStructureVersions, /// Versions of Drive ABCI methods. pub methods: DriveAbciMethodVersions, /// Versions of Drive ABCI validation and processing. pub validation_and_processing: DriveAbciValidationVersions, /// Constants related to Drive ABCI withdrawals. pub withdrawal_constants: DriveAbciWithdrawalConstants, /// Versions of Drive ABCI queries. pub query: DriveAbciQueryVersions, }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_document_versions/mod.rs (2)
5-14: LGTM: Well-structuredDPPDocumentVersions. Consider enhancing comments.The
DPPDocumentVersionsstructure is well-organized and covers various aspects of document versioning. The use ofFeatureVersionandFeatureVersionBoundsallows for flexible version management, and the derived traits are appropriate.Consider adding more detailed comments for each field to provide better context. For example:
pub struct DPPDocumentVersions { /// Version of the overall document structure (e.g., DocumentV0) pub document_structure_version: FeatureVersion, /// Version bounds for document serialization pub document_serialization_version: FeatureVersionBounds, /// Version bounds for CBOR-specific document serialization pub document_cbor_serialization_version: FeatureVersionBounds, /// Version of the extended document structure pub extended_document_structure_version: FeatureVersion, /// Version bounds for extended document serialization pub extended_document_serialization_version: FeatureVersionBounds, /// Versions of specific document methods pub document_method_versions: DocumentMethodVersions, }
16-23: LGTM: Well-structuredDocumentMethodVersions. Add comments for clarity.The
DocumentMethodVersionsstructure is well-organized and consistently usesFeatureVersionfor method versioning. The derived traits are appropriate for this type of structure.To improve clarity, consider adding comments for each field explaining the purpose of each method version. For example:
pub struct DocumentMethodVersions { /// Version of the method for comparing documents ignoring timestamps pub is_equal_ignoring_timestamps: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the document hashing method pub hash: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the method for getting raw data for a contract pub get_raw_for_contract: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the method for getting raw data for a document type pub get_raw_for_document_type: FeatureVersion, /// Version of the method for converting to asset unlock base transaction info pub try_into_asset_unlock_base_transaction_info: FeatureVersion, }packages/rs-dpp/src/data_contract/document_type/schema/find_identifier_and_binary_paths/mod.rs (1)
Line range hint
11-31: Unchanged implementation remains consistent.The
find_identifier_and_binary_pathsmethod implementation remains unchanged and consistent with the new import. This aligns with the PR objective of making structural changes without affecting functionality.Consider updating the error message in the
UnknownVersionMismatchto include the full method name for better debugging:Err(ProtocolError::UnknownVersionMismatch { - method: "find_identifier_and_binary_paths".to_string(), + method: "DocumentType::find_identifier_and_binary_paths".to_string(), known_versions: vec![0], received: version, })packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_document_versions/v1.rs (1)
6-31: LGTM: Structure is well-defined, but consider adding explanatory comments.The
DOCUMENT_VERSIONS_V1constant is well-structured and aligns with the PR objective of refactoring platform versions. The use ofFeatureVersionBoundsfor serialization versions andDocumentMethodVersionsfor method-specific versioning provides a flexible framework for future version management.Consider adding a comment explaining the significance of initializing all versions to 0. For example:
/// Initializes the first version (V1) of document versioning. /// All versions are set to 0 to represent the initial state. /// These will be incremented in future versions as features evolve. pub const DOCUMENT_VERSIONS_V1: DPPDocumentVersions = DPPDocumentVersions { // ... (rest of the code remains the same) };packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_versions/v1.rs (2)
17-28: LGTM: Comprehensive identity transition versioning.The identity transition versions are well-structured and provide a comprehensive versioning system for identity-related operations. The specific values for max public keys and asset lock balances suggest careful consideration.
Consider adding inline comments or documentation to explain the reasoning behind the specific values chosen, such as the max public keys limit of 6 and the asset lock balance requirements. This would improve maintainability and provide context for future developers.
1-29: Great job: Structured versioning aligns well with PR objectives.This new file introduces a well-structured approach to versioning state transitions, which aligns perfectly with the PR's objective of refactoring to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability. The modular structure of
STATE_TRANSITION_VERSIONS_V1allows for easy updates to specific version components and centralizes version information effectively.As the project evolves, consider implementing a mechanism to easily compare different versions of this constant (e.g., V1 vs V2) to quickly identify changes between platform versions. This could be achieved through a simple diff function or documentation that highlights version changes.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_contract_method_versions/v1.rs (2)
7-33: LGTM: Well-structured constant with clear categorization.The
DRIVE_CONTRACT_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant is well-organized, grouping related methods into categories. This structure allows for easy maintenance and future extensions.Consider adding a brief documentation comment above the constant to explain its purpose and usage within the versioning system.
7-33: Consider aligning naming conventions with Rust standards.While the constant name
DRIVE_CONTRACT_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1correctly uses uppercase, the struct and method names use camelCase (e.g.,DriveContractMethodVersions,proveContract). This is consistent within the file but differs from Rust's typical snake_case convention for methods and fields.Consider aligning the naming conventions with Rust standards by using snake_case for method and field names (e.g.,
prove_contractinstead ofproveContract). This would improve consistency with broader Rust ecosystem practices.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_serialization_versions/mod.rs (2)
5-24: LGTM: Comprehensive state transition versioning structure.The
DPPStateTransitionSerializationVersionsstruct provides a well-organized representation of various state transitions in the DPP system. The use ofFeatureVersionBoundsandDocumentFeatureVersionBoundsappropriately differentiates between general and document-specific version bounds.Consider adding a brief doc comment explaining the purpose of this struct and the significance of
FeatureVersionBoundsvsDocumentFeatureVersionBounds. This would enhance code readability and maintainability.
26-29: Add documentation to clarify the purpose ofDocumentFeatureVersionBounds.While the structure is straightforward, its specific purpose and how it differs from using
FeatureVersionBoundsdirectly for document-related fields isn't immediately clear.Consider adding a doc comment explaining why this wrapper struct is necessary and how it's used differently from
FeatureVersionBounds. This would improve code clarity and help maintainers understand the design decision.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_state_transition_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
7-36: Consider adding documentation for version numbers.All version numbers are currently set to 0. It would be helpful to add a comment explaining the significance of these initial values and how they are expected to be used or updated in the future.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_vote_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
7-38: LGTM: Well-structured constant declaration. Consider adding documentation.The
DRIVE_VOTE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant is well-organized and comprehensive, covering various aspects of voting functionality. The use of 0 for all version numbers is consistent with this being the initial (V1) version.Consider adding a brief documentation comment above the constant to explain its purpose and usage. This would enhance code readability and maintainability. For example:
/// Defines the initial (V1) versions of various Drive vote methods. /// All methods are initialized with version 0. pub const DRIVE_VOTE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1: DriveVoteMethodVersions = DriveVoteMethodVersions { // ... (existing code) };packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_credit_pool_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
8-41: LGTM: Well-structured constant with clear versioning.The
CREDIT_POOL_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant is well-organized, grouping related methods logically. The consistent use of version 0 for all methods indicates this is the initial version, which aligns with the file namev1.rs.Consider adding a brief comment above the constant to explain its purpose and the significance of the version numbers. For example:
/// Defines the initial (v1) versions for all credit pool methods. /// All methods are initialized with version 0. pub const CREDIT_POOL_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1: DriveCreditPoolMethodVersions = ...This would enhance the documentation and make it easier for other developers to understand the versioning system at a glance.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/mod.rs (1)
33-34: Consider addressing the TODO comment.The TODO comment suggests that the state transition serialization versions might need to be split by state transition type. This could be an important refinement for more granular version control.
Would you like assistance in planning or implementing this split?
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_contract_versions/v1.rs (2)
18-22: LGTM: Method versions are consistent. Consider adding documentation.The method versions are consistently set to 0, aligning with the main version fields. This supports the notion of an initial version. Consider adding a comment explaining the significance of these method versions for future reference.
1-54: Overall structure looks good. Consider adding comprehensive documentation.The
CONTRACT_VERSIONS_V1constant provides a well-structured and comprehensive versioning system for DPP contracts. The consistency in versioning (mostly set to 0) suggests a well-thought-out initial state.To improve maintainability and aid future developers:
- Consider adding a module-level documentation comment explaining the purpose and usage of this constant.
- Add inline comments for key fields or sections, especially those with non-zero values or complex nested structures.
This documentation will be valuable as the versions evolve in future updates.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_grove_method_versions/v1.rs (2)
6-29: Constant declaration and basic methods look good. Consider adding documentation.The
DRIVE_GROVE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant is well-structured and comprehensive, covering a wide range of Grove operations. All basic method versions are appropriately set to 0 for this initial version.Consider adding documentation comments to explain the purpose of this constant and possibly brief descriptions for each method group. This would enhance code readability and maintainability.
46-54: Apply and costs methods are consistent. Consider future extensibility.The apply and costs methods are well-defined and consistent with the rest of the file, all set to version 0 for this initial implementation.
As the project evolves, you might need to add more methods to these sections. Consider designing a process for adding new methods and incrementing versions to ensure smooth future updates.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_verify_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
8-57: Consider adding documentation for version numbers.While the structure is clear, it would be beneficial to add documentation explaining the significance of these version numbers and how they are used in the system. This would improve maintainability and help future developers understand the versioning system.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_verify_method_versions/mod.rs (5)
22-27: LGTM: Well-defined document verification versioning.The
DriveVerifyDocumentMethodVersionsstruct is well-structured, focusing on document-related verification methods. Each method usingFeatureVersionallows for independent versioning, which is good for managing evolving features.Consider adding a brief comment to explain the purpose of
verify_proof_keep_serialized, as its functionality might not be immediately clear from the name alone.
29-43: LGTM: Comprehensive identity verification versioning, but consider refactoring.The
DriveVerifyIdentityMethodVersionsstruct is comprehensive, covering various aspects of identity verification. Each method usingFeatureVersionallows for independent versioning, which is good for managing evolving features.Given the large number of fields, consider if it might be beneficial to further subdivide this struct into smaller, more focused structs. For example, you could group methods related to public key operations, balance operations, and nonce operations. This could improve readability and maintainability. Here's a potential refactoring:
pub struct DriveVerifyIdentityMethodVersions { pub key_operations: DriveVerifyIdentityKeyOperations, pub balance_operations: DriveVerifyIdentityBalanceOperations, pub nonce_operations: DriveVerifyIdentityNonceOperations, // ... other fields ... } pub struct DriveVerifyIdentityKeyOperations { pub verify_full_identities_by_public_key_hashes: FeatureVersion, pub verify_full_identity_by_public_key_hash: FeatureVersion, pub verify_identity_id_by_public_key_hash: FeatureVersion, pub verify_identity_ids_by_public_key_hashes: FeatureVersion, pub verify_identity_keys_by_identity_id: FeatureVersion, } // Similar structs for balance and nonce operationsThis approach could make the code more modular and easier to maintain as the number of identity-related operations grows.
45-55: LGTM: Comprehensive vote verification versioning, but consider naming improvements.The
DriveVerifyVoteMethodVersionsstruct covers various aspects of vote verification, with each method usingFeatureVersionfor independent versioning. This is a good approach for managing evolving features.Consider shortening some of the longer method names for improved readability. For example:
verify_start_at_contender_in_proofcould beverify_contender_start_in_proofverify_vote_poll_votes_proofcould beverify_poll_votes_proofverify_identity_votes_given_proofcould beverify_identity_votes_proofThese suggestions maintain clarity while reducing length. Always ensure that any name changes are consistent with the naming conventions used throughout the codebase.
67-71: LGTM: Concise single document verification versioning, but consider refactoring.The
DriveVerifySingleDocumentMethodVersionsstruct is well-defined, focusing on single document verification methods. Each method usesFeatureVersionfor independent versioning, which is good for managing evolving features.I noticed that the
verify_proof_keep_serializedmethod appears in both this struct andDriveVerifyDocumentMethodVersions. To avoid duplication and improve maintainability, consider creating a shared struct for common proof verification methods:pub struct CommonProofVerificationMethods { pub verify_proof: FeatureVersion, pub verify_proof_keep_serialized: FeatureVersion, } pub struct DriveVerifyDocumentMethodVersions { pub common: CommonProofVerificationMethods, pub verify_start_at_document_in_proof: FeatureVersion, } pub struct DriveVerifySingleDocumentMethodVersions { pub common: CommonProofVerificationMethods, }This approach would centralize the common methods and make it easier to maintain consistency across different document verification structs.
73-76: LGTM: Focused state transition verification versioning, but consider simplification.The
DriveVerifyStateTransitionMethodVersionsstruct is well-defined, focusing on a single state transition verification method. The use ofFeatureVersionallows for independent versioning, which is good for managing evolving features.Given that this struct contains only one field, consider if it's necessary to have a separate struct for this single method. You might simplify the code by including this method directly in the main
DriveVerifyMethodVersionsstruct:pub struct DriveVerifyMethodVersions { // ... other fields ... pub verify_state_transition_was_executed_with_proof: FeatureVersion, }This would reduce the number of structs and simplify the overall structure without losing any functionality. However, if you anticipate adding more state transition verification methods in the future, keeping it as a separate struct might be justified for future extensibility.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_serialization_versions/v1.rs (1)
6-105: State transitions coverage is comprehensive. Consider adding a descriptive comment.The
STATE_TRANSITION_SERIALIZATION_VERSIONS_V1constant covers a wide range of state transitions, including various operations for both identity and document features. This comprehensive coverage is commendable.To enhance maintainability and clarity, consider adding a descriptive comment above the constant declaration. This comment could briefly explain the purpose of this constant and its role in version management for state transitions.
Example:
/// Defines the serialization versions for various state transitions in DPP. /// This constant sets the initial version bounds for all supported state transition types, /// serving as a reference point for version compatibility checks in the system. pub const STATE_TRANSITION_SERIALIZATION_VERSIONS_V1: DPPStateTransitionSerializationVersions = ...packages/rs-dpp/src/document/specialized_document_factory/mod.rs (1)
Inconsistent version access patterns detected
Multiple instances of
platform_versionremain in the file. Please ensure all version access patterns are consistently updated to use the new approach.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-146: Verify consistent version access throughout the fileThe changes to update the version access pattern have been correctly implemented in the
newandnew_with_entropy_generatormethods. To ensure complete consistency, it would be beneficial to verify if there are any other locations in this file where similar version access patterns should be updated.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining instances of the old version access pattern in the file. # Test: Search for occurrences of 'platform_architecture' or similar old patterns rg -i 'platform_architecture|platform_version' packages/rs-dpp/src/document/specialized_document_factory/mod.rs # Test: Verify that all version accesses use the new pattern rg 'factory_versions' packages/rs-dpp/src/document/specialized_document_factory/mod.rsLength of output: 544
packages/rs-dpp/src/data_contract/factory/mod.rs (1)
42-43: LGTM! Consider adding a clarifying comment.The refactoring of the version access path aligns well with the PR objectives and improves code organization. It's consistent with similar changes in other files, which is good for maintaining a coherent structure across the project.
Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of
data_contract_factory_structure_versionfor improved clarity:// Determine the structure version for the data contract factory match platform_version .dpp .factory_versions .data_contract_factory_structure_version { // ... }packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_vote_method_versions/mod.rs (1)
35-43: Consider Simplifying Field Names for Better ReadabilityThe field names in
DriveVoteCleanupMethodVersionsare quite lengthy, which might impact readability. Consider abbreviating redundant terms to enhance clarity. For example:
remove_contested_resource_vote_poll_end_date_query_operationscould be simplified toremove_vote_poll_end_date_queries.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_query_versions/mod.rs (6)
5-17: Consider adding documentation comments to public structs and fieldsThe
DriveAbciQueryVersionsstruct and its public fields lack documentation. Adding Rust doc comments (///) will improve code readability and maintainability, aiding developers who interact with this API.
19-22: Add documentation toDriveAbciQueryPrefundedSpecializedBalancesVersionsIncluding documentation comments for the
DriveAbciQueryPrefundedSpecializedBalancesVersionsstruct and itsbalancefield will enhance clarity and assist other developers in understanding its purpose.
24-35: Enhance clarity with documentation forDriveAbciQueryIdentityVersionsThe public struct
DriveAbciQueryIdentityVersionsand its fields would benefit from documentation comments. This will provide better insight into each field's role within identity-based queries.
37-41: DocumentDriveAbciQueryValidatorVersionsfor better maintainabilityAdding documentation to
DriveAbciQueryValidatorVersionsand its fields will improve code comprehension, especially regarding how validator queries are versioned.
43-50: Provide documentation forDriveAbciQueryVotingVersionsIncluding Rust doc comments for
DriveAbciQueryVotingVersionsand its fields will enhance the readability of the code and assist in future maintenance.
59-68: Ensure consistent naming conventions inDriveAbciQuerySystemVersionsfieldsSome fields in
DriveAbciQuerySystemVersionsuse plural forms likeepoch_infos, while others are singular likeversion_upgrade_state. For consistency and to avoid ambiguity, consider standardizing the field names to either singular or plural forms as appropriate.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_grove_method_versions/mod.rs (5)
5-11: Consider adding documentation comments to public structs and fieldsProviding documentation comments (
///) for public structs likeDriveGroveMethodVersionsand their fields enhances code readability and maintainability. It assists other developers in understanding their purpose and usage.
13-36: Consider removing redundant prefixes from field names for consistencyIn the
DriveGroveBasicMethodVersionsstruct, field names have thegrove_prefix, which may be redundant given the context provided by the struct name. Removing this prefix can enhance readability and maintain consistency with other structs where field names don't repeat the struct's conceptual prefix.
38-54: Consider abbreviating overly long field names for readabilitySome field names in
DriveGroveBatchMethodVersions, such asbatch_insert_empty_tree_if_not_exists_check_existing_operations, are quite lengthy, which may impact readability. Consider adopting consistent abbreviations or refactoring the names to enhance clarity while maintaining descriptiveness.
56-61: Consider simplifying field names by removing redundant prefixesIn the
DriveGroveApplyMethodVersionsstruct, field names include thegrove_apply_prefix. Since the struct's name already provides context, removing the redundant prefix can improve readability and maintain consistency with other structs.
63-66: Clarify the naming ofgrove_batch_operations_costsIn
DriveGroveCostMethodVersions, the fieldgrove_batch_operations_costsmay be clearer if renamed tobatch_operations_coststo maintain consistency with field naming patterns in other structs. This adjustment enhances readability and aligns with the established naming conventions.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_contract_versions/mod.rs (8)
6-8: Correct typographical error in documentation commentIn line 8, the possessive pronoun "its" is incorrectly written as "it's". Correcting this typo improves the clarity of the comment.
Apply this diff to fix the typo:
/// sends a state transition serialized in a specific version and that the system re-serializes it -/// to the current version, and in so doing increases it's size. +/// to the current version, and in so doing increases its size.
21-25: Add documentation comments to public fields inDataContractMethodVersionsThe public fields in
DataContractMethodVersionslack documentation comments. Adding comments enhances readability and provides clarity on the purpose of each field.Consider adding
///comments to describe each field's functionality.
28-31: Include documentation comments for fields inDocumentTypeClassMethodVersionsThe fields in
DocumentTypeClassMethodVersionsare missing documentation comments. Documenting these fields helps others understand their roles within the struct.Please add
///comments for each public field.
34-36: Add documentation comment toindex_levels_from_indicesThe field
index_levels_from_indicesinDocumentTypeIndexVersionslacks a documentation comment. Providing a comment clarifies its purpose.Consider adding a
///comment to describe this field.
39-46: Provide documentation comments forDocumentTypeVersionsfieldsSeveral public fields in
DocumentTypeVersionsdo not have documentation comments. Adding comments improves code clarity and maintainability.Please include
///comments for each field to explain their purposes.
49-59: Document fields inDocumentTypeMethodVersionsThe public fields within
DocumentTypeMethodVersionsare undocumented. Adding comments helps other developers understand each method version.Add
///comments to describe the functionality of each field.
62-69: Add missing documentation toDocumentTypeSchemaVersionsfieldsFields in
DocumentTypeSchemaVersionslack documentation comments. Documenting them enhances understanding and usage.Consider adding
///comments for all public fields in this struct.
72-74: Include documentation fortraversal_validatorinRecursiveSchemaValidatorVersionsThe field
traversal_validatoris missing a documentation comment. Adding it clarifies the validator's role.Please add a
///comment to describe this field.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
14-121: Consider adding Rust documentation comments to enhance clarityIt's recommended to add Rust doc comments (
///) to theDRIVE_ABCI_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant and its fields. This will improve code readability and help other developers understand the purpose and usage of each method version.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v3.rs (3)
1-12: Simplify Import Statements for Better ReadabilityThe import statements span multiple lines and include numerous items, which can affect readability. Consider restructuring the imports for clarity.
You can group related imports or use nested import paths as follows:
use crate::version::drive_abci_versions::drive_abci_method_versions::{ DriveAbciBlockEndMethodVersions, DriveAbciBlockFeeProcessingMethodVersions, DriveAbciBlockStartMethodVersions, DriveAbciCoreBasedUpdatesMethodVersions, DriveAbciCoreChainLockMethodVersionsAndConstants, DriveAbciCoreInstantSendLockMethodVersions, DriveAbciEngineMethodVersions, DriveAbciEpochMethodVersions, DriveAbciFeePoolInwardsDistributionMethodVersions, DriveAbciFeePoolOutwardsDistributionMethodVersions, DriveAbciIdentityCreditWithdrawalMethodVersions, DriveAbciInitializationMethodVersions, DriveAbciMasternodeIdentitiesUpdatesMethodVersions, DriveAbciMethodVersions, DriveAbciPlatformStateStorageMethodVersions, DriveAbciProtocolUpgradeMethodVersions, DriveAbciStateTransitionProcessingMethodVersions, DriveAbciVotingMethodVersions, };
51-51: Externalize Magic Number for Protocol Upgrade ThresholdThe value
67forprotocol_version_upgrade_percentage_neededis a magic number. To enhance maintainability and readability, consider defining it as a constant with a descriptive name.For example:
const PROTOCOL_UPGRADE_THRESHOLD_PERCENTAGE: u8 = 67; ... protocol_version_upgrade_percentage_needed: PROTOCOL_UPGRADE_THRESHOLD_PERCENTAGE,This approach makes it easier to understand the purpose of the value and simplifies future updates if the threshold changes.
63-63: Definerecent_block_count_amountas a ConstantThe hard-coded value
2forrecent_block_count_amountcan be defined as a constant to improve clarity and ease of maintenance.For example:
const RECENT_BLOCK_COUNT_AMOUNT: u32 = 2; ... recent_block_count_amount: RECENT_BLOCK_COUNT_AMOUNT,This helps in understanding the significance of the value and facilitates changes in the future.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_query_versions/v1.rs (2)
1-7: Consider adding module-level documentation for clarityAdding Rust doc comments (
//!or///) at the module level and for the imports can improve code readability and provide context for other developers.Would you like assistance in drafting the documentation comments?
8-168: Add Rust doc comments to the constant and its fieldsBased on previous learnings, adding documentation comments to structs and fields is recommended to enhance clarity and maintainability. This will help future contributors understand the purpose of each field in
DRIVE_ABCI_QUERY_VERSIONS_V1.Would you like me to help draft the documentation comments?
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/mod.rs (1)
159-160: Consider Simplifying Long Field Name for ReadabilityThe field
add_estimation_costs_for_contested_document_tree_levels_up_to_contract_document_type_excludedis exceedingly long, which may impact code readability and maintainability. Consider renaming it to a more concise yet descriptive name.Suggested change:
- pub add_estimation_costs_for_contested_document_tree_levels_up_to_contract_document_type_excluded: + pub add_estimation_costs_excluding_document_type: FeatureVersion,This shorter name maintains clarity while enhancing readability.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/v3.rs (1)
136-145: Enhance Documentation for Version NumbersConsider adding comments or documentation to explain the significance of each version number assigned in the validation configurations. This will improve maintainability and help future contributors understand the versioning scheme.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_identity_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
115-117: Adjust indentation for consistent formatting.Line 116 (
refresh_potential_contract_info_key_references: 0,) is misaligned compared to surrounding lines, which affects code readability.Consider correcting the indentation to align with the other fields:
114 contract_info: DriveIdentityContractInfoMethodVersions { 115 add_potential_contract_info_for_contract_bounded_key: 0, 116- refresh_potential_contract_info_key_references: 0, 117 merge_identity_contract_nonce: 0, 118 }, + refresh_potential_contract_info_key_references: 0,packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_identity_method_versions/mod.rs (3)
25-28: Consistent naming for method versions improves clarityThe method names like
fetch_oldest_withdrawal_documents_by_statusandfind_withdrawal_documents_by_status_and_transaction_indicesinDriveIdentityWithdrawalDocumentMethodVersionsare descriptive. Ensure that this naming convention is consistently applied across all structs for better readability.
80-92: Clarify distinction between unique and non-unique public key hashesThe methods in
DriveIdentityFetchPublicKeyHashesMethodVersionshandle both unique and non-unique public key hashes. To prevent confusion, consider grouping these methods separately or adding documentation to highlight their differences.
176-199: Ensure method names accurately reflect their functionalityWithin
DriveIdentityUpdateMethodVersions, some method names may benefit from more precise wording. For example,add_to_previous_balancecould be renamed toupdate_previous_balanceto better convey its action. Consistent and descriptive method names enhance code readability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (82)
- packages/rs-dpp/src/data_contract/document_type/schema/find_identifier_and_binary_paths/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-dpp/src/data_contract/factory/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-dpp/src/document/document_factory/mod.rs (2 hunks)
- packages/rs-dpp/src/document/specialized_document_factory/mod.rs (2 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-serialization-derive/src/attribute.rs (0 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions.rs (0 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_asset_lock_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_asset_lock_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_contract_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_contract_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_costs_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_costs_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_document_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_document_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_factory_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_factory_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_identity_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_identity_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_serialization_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_serialization_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_versions/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_validation_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_validation_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_validation_versions/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_voting_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_voting_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_voting_versions/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs (0 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v3.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_query_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_query_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_structure_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_structure_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/v3.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_withdrawal_constants/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_withdrawal_constants/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_withdrawal_constants/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions.rs (0 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_contract_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_contract_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_credit_pool_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_credit_pool_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_document_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_document_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_grove_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_grove_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_identity_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_identity_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_state_transition_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_state_transition_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_structure_version/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_structure_version/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_verify_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_verify_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_vote_method_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_vote_method_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_vote_method_versions/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/v1.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/v2.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v2_test.rs (6 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v3_test.rs (2 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/protocol_version.rs (1 hunks)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/mod.rs (1 hunks)
⛔ Files not processed due to max files limit (7)
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/v1.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_limits/mod.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_limits/v1.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v1.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v2.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v3.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v4.rs
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (4)
- packages/rs-platform-serialization-derive/src/attribute.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs
- packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions.rs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (8)
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2182 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs:116-121 Timestamp: 2024-09-29T13:13:54.230Z Learning: Adding Rust doc comments to structs and fields is recommended to enhance clarity and documentation.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v2.rs (1)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2182 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs:116-121 Timestamp: 2024-09-29T13:13:54.230Z Learning: Adding Rust doc comments to structs and fields is recommended to enhance clarity and documentation.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_query_versions/v1.rs (1)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2182 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs:116-121 Timestamp: 2024-09-29T13:13:54.230Z Learning: Adding Rust doc comments to structs and fields is recommended to enhance clarity and documentation.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_structure_versions/mod.rs (1)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2182 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs:116-121 Timestamp: 2024-09-29T13:13:54.230Z Learning: Adding Rust doc comments to structs and fields is recommended to enhance clarity and documentation.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_structure_versions/v1.rs (1)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2182 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs:116-121 Timestamp: 2024-09-29T13:13:54.230Z Learning: Adding Rust doc comments to structs and fields is recommended to enhance clarity and documentation.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/v1.rs (1)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2182 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs:116-121 Timestamp: 2024-09-29T13:13:54.230Z Learning: Adding Rust doc comments to structs and fields is recommended to enhance clarity and documentation.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/mod.rs (1)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2182 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions.rs:116-121 Timestamp: 2024-09-29T13:13:54.230Z Learning: Adding Rust doc comments to structs and fields is recommended to enhance clarity and documentation.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v3_test.rs (2)
Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2206 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v3_test.rs:617-617 Timestamp: 2024-10-09T00:22:57.778Z Learning: In cases where `consensus_params_update` versions are set differently across files, the discrepancies may be intentional due to different platform versions.Learnt from: shumkov PR: dashpay/platform#2206 File: packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v3_test.rs:617-617 Timestamp: 2024-10-04T09:08:04.494Z Learning: In cases where `consensus_params_update` versions are set differently across files, the discrepancies may be intentional due to different platform versions.
🔇 Additional comments (171)
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_costs_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and follows conventions.The import statement correctly brings the
DPPCostsVersionsstruct into scope from the appropriate module path.
1-5: Overall, the new file looks good and aligns with the PR objectives.This file introduces a new constant for versioning DPP costs, which is in line with the PR's goal of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The structure and naming conventions follow Rust best practices, contributing to improved code organization and maintainability.
A few points to consider:
- Ensure that the
DPPCostsVersionsstruct is fully utilized, initializing all necessary fields.- Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this constant and how it fits into the larger versioning scheme.
- If there are any specific usage instructions or important notes about this constant, it might be helpful to include them as documentation comments.
3-5: Constant declaration looks good, but please clarify the initialization.The constant
DPP_COSTS_VERSIONS_V1is correctly declared and follows Rust naming conventions. However, I have a question about its initialization:
- Is it intentional that only the
signature_verifyfield is set, or are there other fields inDPPCostsVersionsthat should be initialized?To verify the structure of
DPPCostsVersions, please run the following script:This will help us confirm if there are other fields that should be considered in the initialization.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_costs_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-1: LGTM: Appropriate import for versioning.The import of
FeatureVersionfromversioned_feature_coreis correct and aligns with the PR's objective of refactoring platform versions.
1-8: Overall, well-structured module for DPP costs versioning.This new file successfully introduces a module for managing DPP costs versions, aligning well with the PR's objective of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The structure is clean, follows Rust conventions, and should help reduce code duplication.
Consider implementing the suggested documentation improvements to enhance code clarity and maintainability.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_asset_lock_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-1: LGTM: Appropriate import statement.The import of
FeatureVersionBoundsfromversioned_feature_coreis correctly specified and necessary for the struct definition that follows.
1-8: Overall assessment: Well-structured module for DPP asset lock versions.This new file successfully introduces a module for managing DPP asset lock versions, aligning with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The code is well-structured, follows Rust best practices, and contributes to better organization and modularity of the versioning system.
Key points:
- Appropriate use of imports
- Good structuring with a versioned submodule
- Clear and concise struct definition with proper derive macros
The implementation looks solid, and there are no apparent issues or concerns. The suggested minor improvements for documentation would further enhance the code quality.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_withdrawal_constants/mod.rs (2)
1-2: Excellent modular structure for version management.The introduction of
v1andv2modules aligns well with the PR objective of implementing sub-versions to reduce code duplication. This structure allows for easy addition of future versions without modifying existing code, enhancing maintainability and scalability.
1-8: Overall excellent refactoring for version management.This new file introduces a clean and modular structure for managing versioned constants related to Drive ABCI withdrawals. It aligns perfectly with the PR objectives of refactoring and reducing code duplication. The use of sub-modules (
v1andv2) and a well-defined struct (DriveAbciWithdrawalConstants) promotes maintainability and scalability.The only minor suggestion is to add documentation comments for improved clarity. Otherwise, this implementation is a solid foundation for managing versioned constants in the project.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
2-5: Verify the intention of zero values for version constants.Both
epoch_core_reward_credits_for_distributionanddaily_withdrawal_limitare set to 0 in this version. While this might be intentional, it's important to confirm the implications:
epoch_core_reward_credits_for_distribution: 0- Does this mean no credits are being distributed for core rewards in this version?daily_withdrawal_limit: 0- Does this indicate no limit on daily withdrawals?These settings could significantly impact system behavior, incentives, and potentially security. Please verify if these values are correct and intended.
Could you provide more context on the reasoning behind these zero values and their expected impact on the system?
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_factory_versions/v1.rs (1)
1-6: LGTM! Consider adding documentation.The implementation of
DPP_FACTORY_VERSIONS_V1looks good and aligns with the PR objectives of refactoring the platform version. The structure is clean and straightforward.Consider adding a documentation comment above the constant to explain its purpose and usage. This would enhance code readability and maintainability. For example:
/// Defines the initial version (v1) of DPP factory versions. /// This constant is used to specify the structure versions for /// data contract and document factories in the Decentralized Payment Protocol. pub const DPP_FACTORY_VERSIONS_V1: DPPFactoryVersions = DPPFactoryVersions { data_contract_factory_structure_version: 0, document_factory_structure_version: 0, };Let's verify the consistency of this versioning approach across the codebase:
This will help ensure that the versioning approach is consistent across different versions and that the
DPPFactoryVersionsstructure is uniform throughout the codebase.✅ Verification successful
Verification Passed: Versioning Consistent Across Codebase.
All
DPP_FACTORY_VERSIONSconstants and theDPPFactoryVersionsstructure are consistent across the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other DPP_FACTORY_VERSIONS constants and their structure # Search for other DPP_FACTORY_VERSIONS constants echo "Searching for DPP_FACTORY_VERSIONS constants:" rg "DPP_FACTORY_VERSIONS_V\d+\s*:\s*DPPFactoryVersions\s*=" -g '*.rs' # Check the structure of DPPFactoryVersions echo "\nChecking the structure of DPPFactoryVersions:" rg "struct\s+DPPFactoryVersions" -A 5 -g '*.rs'Length of output: 972
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_method_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-1: LGTM: Appropriate import for version management.The import of
FeatureVersionfromversioned_feature_coreis correct and necessary for the struct definition that follows.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_factory_versions/mod.rs (3)
1-1: LGTM: Module declaration follows best practices.The public module
v1is declared, which is a common pattern for versioning in Rust. This allows for future versions to be added easily while maintaining backwards compatibility.
3-3: LGTM: Appropriate import for version management.The
FeatureVersiontype is imported fromversioned_feature_core, which is suitable for managing version information in this context.
1-9: Overall: Excellent refactoring for version management.This new file successfully introduces a structured approach to managing DPP factory versions, aligning well with the PR's objective of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The modular structure, appropriate use of types, and clear naming conventions contribute to improved maintainability and reduce code duplication.
The introduction of
DPPFactoryVersionsstruct provides a centralized location for managing version information, which can be easily extended in the future if needed. This refactoring should indeed enhance the overall structure of the platform version management system.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_structure_version/mod.rs (2)
1-1: LGTM: Appropriate import forFeatureVersionBounds.The import of
FeatureVersionBoundsfromversioned_feature_coreis correctly used in theDriveStructureVersionstruct.
3-3: LGTM: Submodule declaration for versioning.The declaration of
pub mod v1suggests a good practice of separating different versions into submodules.Please ensure that the
v1submodule is properly implemented. You can verify this with the following script:✅ Verification successful
Verified:
v1submodule is properly implemented.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of the v1 submodule # Test: Check if v1.rs exists in the same directory fd -p "packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_structure_version/v1.rs" # Test: If v1.rs doesn't exist, check if there's a v1 directory with a mod.rs file fd -p "packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_structure_version/v1/mod.rs"Length of output: 277
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-1: LGTM! Addition of v1 module aligns with refactoring objectives.The introduction of the
v1module is consistent with the PR's goal of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. This change should help in reducing code duplication and improving maintainability.To ensure the
v1module is properly implemented, please run the following script:✅ Verification successful
Verification Successful
The
v1module exists and contains the expected public constants related to system data contract versions.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the v1 module exists and contains expected content # Test 1: Check if the v1.rs file exists fd -p "packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/v1.rs" # Test 2: Verify the content of the v1.rs file rg -A 10 "pub const" packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_data_contract_versions/v1.rs # Expected: The script should show the v1.rs file exists and contains public constants related to system data contract versions.Length of output: 498
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_withdrawal_constants/v1.rs (2)
1-7: LGTM: Well-structured constant definitionThe constant
DRIVE_ABCI_WITHDRAWAL_CONSTANTS_V1is well-defined and follows good naming conventions. This structure aligns with the PR's objective of reducing code duplication and improving maintainability.
3-7: Verify the correctness of constant valuesPlease confirm that the values set for
core_expiration_blocks(48) andcleanup_expired_locks_of_withdrawal_amounts_limit(0) are correct for version 1. These values seem intentional, but it's important to ensure they align with the expected behavior for this version.To help verify these values, you can run the following script to check for any related constants or usages:
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_withdrawal_constants/v2.rs (2)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and follows good practices.The import statement correctly brings the
DriveAbciWithdrawalConstantstype into scope from the parent module. This follows good module organization practices.
5-6: Verify the correctness and implications of the constant field values.The values set for
core_expiration_blocks(48) andcleanup_expired_locks_of_withdrawal_amounts_limit(64) appear to be specific configuration parameters. While these may be carried over from a previous version, it's important to ensure they are correct and understand their implications.Please confirm:
- Are these values identical to the previous version, or have they been adjusted?
- If adjusted, what are the reasons and potential impacts of these changes?
- Do these values align with the expected behavior of the withdrawal process in the current system?
Consider adding comments explaining the significance of these values to improve code maintainability.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_voting_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is appropriate.The import of
FeatureVersionfromversioned_feature_coreis correctly used in the struct definition.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_voting_versions/v2.rs (4)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import of
DPPVotingVersionsis appropriate for the constant declaration that follows.
3-7: LGTM: Well-structured constant declaration.The
VOTING_VERSION_V2constant is well-defined with clear and readable values for voting durations. The use of underscores in large numbers improves readability, and the comments provide helpful context for the duration values.
1-7: Summary: New voting version constant aligns with refactoring objectives.The introduction of
VOTING_VERSION_V2contributes to the PR's goal of refactoring the platform version into sub-versions. This constant provides a clear and structured way to manage voting-related parameters, which should help reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.The constant's structure allows for easy differentiation between mainnet and test network settings, which is a good practice for configuration management. This approach aligns well with the PR's objective of enhancing the overall code structure without changing functionality.
6-6: Verify thecontested_document_vote_poll_stored_info_versionvalue.The
contested_document_vote_poll_stored_info_versionis set to 0. Please confirm if this is the intended initial value for version 2 of the voting system.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_voting_versions/v1.rs (2)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and follows the module structure.The import of
DPPVotingVersionsis appropriate for the constant declaration that follows.
3-7: Overall structure looks good, with some suggestions for improvement.
- The constant name and structure follow Rust conventions, which is great.
- Consider using a shared constant for the duration to avoid duplication:
const TWO_WEEKS_MS: u64 = 1_209_600_000;- Verify if the mainnet and test network durations should indeed be the same. It's common to have shorter durations in test environments.
- The
contested_document_vote_poll_stored_info_versionis set to 0. Please clarify if this is intentional and what it signifies (e.g., initial version, not implemented yet, etc.).To verify the durations across different environments, please run:
✅ Verification successful
Approve with Suggestions for Improvement
- The constant name and structure follow Rust conventions, which is great.
- Consider using a shared constant for the duration to avoid duplication:
const TWO_WEEKS_MS: u64 = 1_209_600_000;- The mainnet and test network durations are the same in this version. Ensure that this is intentional, especially since in other versions like
v2.rs, test network durations differ.- The
contested_document_vote_poll_stored_info_versionis set to 0. Please clarify if this is intentional and what it signifies (e.g., initial version, not implemented yet, etc.).🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other duration constants in the codebase rg -i 'duration.*(_ms|millisecond)' --type rustLength of output: 1652
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_asset_lock_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and align with the refactoring objective.The imports bring in the necessary types for version management, both from the local crate and the external
versioned_feature_corecrate. This aligns well with the PR's objective of refactoring the platform version system.
1-10: Overall, the changes align well with the PR objectives.The introduction of
DPP_ASSET_LOCK_VERSIONS_V1contributes to the refactoring of the platform version system as intended. The structure provides a clear way to manage version bounds for the reduced asset lock value feature. With the addition of proper documentation, this change will significantly improve the maintainability and clarity of the version management system.
4-10: Add documentation and clarify version bounds.The constant
DPP_ASSET_LOCK_VERSIONS_V1is introduced without any accompanying documentation. To improve code maintainability and clarity:
- Add a doc comment explaining the purpose and usage of this constant.
- Clarify why all version bounds are set to 0. Is this an initial state, or does it have a specific meaning in the context of asset locks?
Consider adding documentation like this:
/// Represents version 1 of the DPP Asset Lock Versions. /// /// This constant defines the version bounds for the reduced asset lock value feature. /// All bounds are currently set to 0, which [explain the significance of this]. pub const DPP_ASSET_LOCK_VERSIONS_V1: DPPAssetLockVersions = DPPAssetLockVersions { // ... [rest of the code remains the same] };To ensure this constant is used consistently across the codebase, let's verify its usage:
✅ Verification successful
Add documentation and clarify version bounds.
The constant
DPP_ASSET_LOCK_VERSIONS_V1is used consistently across the codebase. To improve maintainability and clarity:
- Add a doc comment explaining the purpose and usage of this constant.
- Clarify why all version bounds are set to 0. Is this an initial state, or does it have a specific meaning in the context of asset locks?
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check usage of DPP_ASSET_LOCK_VERSIONS_V1 constant # Search for usage of the constant echo "Usages of DPP_ASSET_LOCK_VERSIONS_V1:" rg "DPP_ASSET_LOCK_VERSIONS_V1" --type rust # Check if there are any other v1 constants in the codebase echo "\nOther v1 constants in the codebase:" rg "pub const \w+_V1:" --type rustLength of output: 7066
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/mod.rs (4)
1-1: Appropriate import for versioning.The import of
FeatureVersionfromversioned_feature_coreis appropriate and aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions.
3-4: Effective use of versioned submodules.The declaration of
v1andv2submodules provides a clean separation of different versions, supporting the PR objective of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. This structure also allows for easy addition of future versions if needed.
1-12: Overall assessment: Well-structured and aligned with PR objectives.This new file introduces a well-organized module for managing DPP state transition conversion versions. The code is clean, follows Rust conventions, and provides a solid foundation for version management. The structure aligns perfectly with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions, allowing for better maintainability and reduced redundancy.
The use of
FeatureVersion, versioned submodules, and a dedicated struct for state transition conversions demonstrates a thoughtful approach to version management. This structure should facilitate easier maintenance and future expansions of the platform's versioning system.
6-12: Well-defined struct for state transition conversion versions.The
DPPStateTransitionConversionVersionsstruct is well-defined with appropriate derive macros and comprehensive fields covering different types of identity transitions.Consider whether public fields are appropriate for your use case. If you need more control over how these fields are accessed or modified, you might want to make the fields private and provide getter methods. This would allow for better encapsulation and the ability to add validation or additional logic when accessing or modifying these values in the future.
To verify the current usage of this struct, you can run the following command:
This will help determine if direct field access is currently being used throughout the codebase, which might inform the decision on whether to keep the fields public or make them private with getter methods.
✅ Verification successful
Public fields are appropriately used in
DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions.The struct’s public fields are consistently utilized for initializing version configurations without unintended modifications. No issues found regarding field accessibility.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions rg "DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions" -A 10Length of output: 6186
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_identity_versions/v1.rs (1)
1-3: LGTM: Imports are correctly specified.The import statements are properly structured and import the necessary types for the constant declaration.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_structure_versions/v1.rs (2)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import statement correctly brings the
DriveAbciStructureVersionstype into scope, which is necessary for the constant declaration that follows.
3-11: Verify the intentional use of all zeros for initialization.All fields in
DRIVE_ABCI_STRUCTURE_VERSIONS_V1are initialized to 0. While this might be intentional, it's worth confirming that this is the desired initial state for all these version fields.Could you please confirm if initializing all fields to 0 is intentional? If so, consider adding a comment explaining the reasoning behind this choice.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_structure_versions/mod.rs (2)
3-3: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import of
FeatureVersionfromversioned_feature_coreis appropriate for the struct definition.
1-13: Overall, the new Drive ABCI structure versions module looks good.The introduction of this module and the
DriveAbciStructureVersionsstruct aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. This structure should help in managing different versions of Drive ABCI components, potentially reducing code duplication as mentioned in the PR summary.The code is well-structured and follows Rust conventions. The main suggestion for improvement is to add documentation to the module, struct, and fields to enhance code clarity and maintainability.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/v1.rs (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and follows good practices.The import statement correctly brings in the necessary type for the constant declaration and uses a relative path, which is good for module organization.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions/v2.rs (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and follows good practices.The import statement correctly brings in the necessary type for the constant declaration. The use of a relative path indicates good module organization within the project structure.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_identity_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-3: LGTM: Appropriate import and module structure.The import of
FeatureVersionand the declaration of thev1module provide a good foundation for version management in this file.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_method_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-3: LGTM: Appropriate import and module structure.The import of
FeatureVersionand the declaration of thev1module provide a good foundation for version management in this file.
1-18: Great job on restructuring the versioning system!This new file introduces a clear and modular approach to managing versions for DPP state transition methods, particularly focusing on public key creation. The structure aligns well with the PR objectives of improving maintainability and reducing redundancy. Here's a summary of the key points:
- Clear separation of concerns with distinct structs for different versioning aspects.
- Consistent use of
FeatureVersionacross all fields.- Modular design that should facilitate easier management and updates of versions in the future.
This approach should significantly reduce code duplication across different versions, as mentioned in the PR objectives. Great work on enhancing the overall structure of the versioning system!
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_method_versions/v1.rs (2)
1-15: LGTM: Well-structured version management implementation.The implementation aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The use of a constant for version information supports maintainability and centralized version management. The code structure is clean and follows Rust conventions.
7-14: Verify the intention behind setting all version numbers to 0.All version numbers in the
PublicKeyInCreationMethodVersionsstructure are set to 0. Could you please confirm if this is intentional? It might indicate an initial setup or a placeholder for future versioning.If this is intentional, consider adding a comment explaining the reasoning behind this choice to improve code clarity.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_structure_version/v1.rs (4)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and well-organized.The imports are correctly structured, using a relative path for internal types and an external import for the versioning feature. This demonstrates good module organization and proper use of dependencies.
4-20: LGTM: Well-structured constant declaration for drive structure versioning.The
DRIVE_STRUCTURE_V1constant is well-organized, providing a clear structure for version management of document indexes, identity indexes, and pools. The use ofFeatureVersionBoundsfor each field allows for flexible version control.
5-19: Verify the intention behind setting all version numbers to 0.All version numbers (min_version, max_version, and default_current_version) are set to 0 for each field. While this could represent an initial state, it's important to confirm if this is intentional or if these are placeholder values that need to be updated.
Could you please clarify the reasoning behind setting all version numbers to 0? If these are intended to be updated later, consider adding a TODO comment to highlight this for future development.
1-20: Summary: New constant aligns with PR objectives, enhancing version management.This new file introduces
DRIVE_STRUCTURE_V1, which aligns well with the PR's goal of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. It provides a clear structure for managing versions of different drive components (document indexes, identity indexes, and pools). This approach should help reduce code duplication and improve maintainability, as mentioned in the PR objectives.The constant's structure allows for flexible version management, which could be beneficial for future updates. However, ensure that the initial version numbers (all set to 0) are intentional and aligned with the overall versioning strategy of the project.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-5: Well-structured module organization.The modular structure improves code organization and maintainability by separating different aspects of Drive ABCI versioning into distinct modules. This approach enhances readability and makes it easier to manage and update specific components independently.
7-11: Imports are well-organized and consistent.The imports correctly correspond to the declared modules, bringing in specific types from each module. This approach provides clear visibility into the components being used in this file.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_document_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-3: LGTM: Imports and module declaration are appropriate.The imports from
versioned_feature_coreare relevant for the versioning structures defined in this file. Thev1module declaration suggests a good separation of version-specific implementations, which enhances maintainability.
1-23: Overall: Well-structured version management, aligns with PR objectives.This new file introduces well-organized structures for version management in the DPP, which aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions and reducing code duplication. The use of
FeatureVersionandFeatureVersionBoundsfrom theversioned_feature_corecrate allows for flexible and granular version management.The structures
DPPDocumentVersionsandDocumentMethodVersionsprovide a clear separation of concerns for different aspects of document versioning. This should contribute to improved maintainability and reduced redundancy across different versions.While the overall structure is good, adding more detailed comments as suggested in previous review comments would further enhance the clarity and maintainability of the code.
packages/rs-dpp/src/data_contract/document_type/schema/find_identifier_and_binary_paths/mod.rs (1)
6-6: LGTM: Import path updated correctly.The import path for
DocumentTypeVersionshas been updated to reflect the new structure. This change aligns with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions, potentially improving code organization.To ensure consistency, let's verify that
DocumentTypeVersionsis used correctly throughout the file:✅ Verification successful
Verified: Usage of
DocumentTypeVersionsis consistent with the updated import path.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of DocumentTypeVersions in the file # Test: Check if DocumentTypeVersions is used correctly rg -n "DocumentTypeVersions" packages/rs-dpp/src/data_contract/document_type/schema/find_identifier_and_binary_paths/mod.rsLength of output: 272
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_document_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-4: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The imports are appropriate for the constant being defined. The use of relative imports for internal types and the external import for
FeatureVersionBoundsis correct.
1-31: Summary: Well-structured versioning constant, with some points to consider.The introduction of
DOCUMENT_VERSIONS_V1aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The structure provides a flexible framework for managing document-related versions. However, consider the following points:
- Add explanatory comments to clarify the significance of initializing all versions to 0.
- Verify that setting all versions to 0 doesn't unintentionally affect existing functionalities or break compatibility with current systems.
Overall, this change appears to be a solid step towards better version management, but careful verification of its impact on the existing codebase is recommended.
6-31: Verify initial version numbers and their impact.While setting all versions to 0 is consistent with initializing a new versioning system, it's important to ensure this doesn't unintentionally affect existing functionalities.
Please confirm:
- That 0 is the correct starting point for all fields, especially for existing features.
- That this initialization doesn't break compatibility with any current systems relying on these version numbers.
You can use the following script to check for any existing usage of non-zero version numbers:
If any results are found, please review them to ensure this change doesn't introduce unintended effects.
✅ Verification successful
To gather more information about the versioning system and its implications, I'll need to examine some key files related to versioning in the codebase. Let's start by looking at the content of some relevant files.
To gather more information about the versioning strategy and its implementation, let's examine some additional files and search for relevant comments or usage patterns.
Let's examine the specific file we're reviewing and look for any related tests or documentation.
Based on our analysis, we can now provide a final response to the original concern.
Setting all versions to 0 is consistent with the codebase's versioning strategy.
The use of 0 as the initial version for all fields in the
DOCUMENT_VERSIONS_V1struct is consistent with the broader versioning approach used in the project. This pattern is observed in other parts of the codebase, such as the voting versions, and appears to be a deliberate design choice. While the struct is part of a "v1" module, the internal component versions start at 0, likely representing the initial state for each feature or component.This approach allows for future incremental updates to specific version fields as needed, while maintaining a clear starting point for each component. It aligns with the PR's objective of reducing code duplication across different versions by providing a consistent initial state.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for existing usage of non-zero version numbers in the codebase. # Test: Look for any non-zero version assignments or comparisons rg -i '(version|ver).*[^0]\d+' --type rustLength of output: 457738
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the content of files related to versioning cat packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mod.rs echo "----------------------------------------" cat packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v1.rs echo "----------------------------------------" cat packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_document_versions/v1.rsLength of output: 5675
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for comments about versioning strategy and usage of version numbers grep -r "version" packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/ | grep -E "//|/\*" | head -n 20 echo "----------------------------------------" grep -r "version.*= 0" packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/ | grep -v "//" | head -n 20 echo "----------------------------------------" grep -r "if.*version" packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/ | head -n 20Length of output: 5238
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the specific file we're reviewing cat packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_document_versions/v1.rs echo "----------------------------------------" # Look for tests related to document versions grep -r "test.*document.*version" packages/rs-platform-version/src/ echo "----------------------------------------" # Check for any documentation comments related to version initialization grep -r "/// .*version.*init" packages/rs-platform-version/src/Length of output: 1861
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_validation_versions/v2.rs (4)
1-4: LGTM: Imports are well-organized and relevant.The imports are appropriately grouped and contain all the necessary structs for defining the
DPP_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V2constant.
6-31: LGTM: Well-structured constant definition.The
DPP_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V2constant is well-organized and provides a comprehensive set of validation configurations for different components of the system.
22-30: Verify the non-zero values in the constant.Please confirm that the following non-zero values are intentional and correct:
- In
document_type:
contested_index_limit: 1unique_index_limit: 10- In
voting:
allow_other_contenders_time_mainnet_ms: 604_800_000(1 week in ms)allow_other_contenders_time_testing_ms: 2_700_000(45 minutes)votes_allowed_per_masternode: 5These values seem to be specific configurations that might impact system behavior. Ensure they align with the intended design and requirements.
1-31: Summary: New constant aligns with PR objectives.This new file introduces a well-structured
DPP_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V2constant, which aligns with the PR's objective of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The constant provides a clear and modular approach to managing validation versions for various components of the system.The structure enhances maintainability by centralizing version configurations, which should help reduce code duplication as mentioned in the PR objectives. However, ensure that this new constant is properly integrated with the rest of the codebase to fully realize the benefits of this refactoring.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_validation_versions/v1.rs (5)
1-6: LGTM: Imports and constant declaration look good.The imports are appropriate for the file's content, and the constant declaration follows Rust naming conventions.
7-20: Verify: Are all version numbers intentionally set to 0?All version numbers for
JsonSchemaValidatorVersionsandDataContractValidationVersionsare currently set to 0. While this could be intentional for initial versions or as part of the refactoring process, it's worth confirming if these are indeed the correct values.Do you need any assistance in determining or updating these version numbers?
21-25: Verify: Rationale for DocumentTypeValidationVersions valuesThe
DocumentTypeValidationVersionssection has specific values:
validate_update: 0contested_index_limit: 1unique_index_limit: 10Could you provide more context on the reasoning behind these specific values, especially for the index limits? These limits might have performance or security implications that should be documented.
26-31: Suggestion: Enhance comments and verify voting parameters
Consider adding more detailed comments explaining:
- The rationale behind the 1-week time allowance
- Why the testing environment will change in v2
- The reasoning for allowing 5 votes per masternode
Verify if these voting parameters align with the system's design goals:
- Is a 1-week voting period appropriate for both mainnet and testing in v1?
- Is 5 votes per masternode the optimal limit?
Adding this context will improve code maintainability and help future developers understand the design decisions.
1-31: Overall: Well-structured constant, some verifications neededThe
DPP_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V1constant provides a clear and centralized way to manage validation versions and limits. The structure is well-organized and easy to understand. To further improve this file:
- Verify the version numbers, especially the ones set to 0.
- Confirm the rationale behind specific limits (e.g., index limits, voting parameters).
- Enhance comments to provide more context on design decisions.
These improvements will ensure that the constant is not only well-structured but also well-documented for future maintenance.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_versions/v1.rs (2)
1-8: LGTM: Well-structured imports and constant declaration.The import statements and constant declaration are well-organized and follow Rust naming conventions. The use of a dedicated type
DPPStateTransitionVersionsfor the constant suggests a structured approach to version management.
9-16: Verify intention: Document transition versions set to 0.The document transition validation versions (
find_duplicates_by_idandvalidate_base_structure) are both set to 0. While this aligns with the PR objective of refactoring without changing functionality, it's worth confirming if these are indeed the intended initial versions or if they should be set to a specific version number.Could you confirm if setting these versions to 0 is intentional, or if they should be initialized to a different value?
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_versions/v2.rs (5)
1-6: Imports look good and are properly organized.The imports are concise and include all the necessary types for defining the
STATE_TRANSITION_VERSIONS_V2constant. They are correctly scoped to thedpp_state_transition_versionsmodule.
8-29: TheSTATE_TRANSITION_VERSIONS_V2constant structure looks good.The constant is well-structured and includes all the necessary components for document and identity transitions as mentioned in the PR objectives. The nested structure enhances readability and maintainability.
18-21: Verify the specific values for max public keys and asset lock balances.Please confirm that these values are correct:
- Max public keys in creation: 6
- Required asset lock balance for identity create: 200000
- Required asset lock balance for identity top-up: 50000
These values might have significant implications on the system's behavior.
25-27: Credit withdrawal default constructor version differs from others.The credit withdrawal default constructor is set to version 1, while most other versions in this constant are set to 0. Is this intentional? If so, it might be helpful to add a comment explaining why this particular version is different.
1-29: Overall, the file looks well-structured and aligns with the PR objectives.The introduction of
STATE_TRANSITION_VERSIONS_V2constant successfully contributes to the refactoring of platform versions into sub-versions. The structure is clear, maintainable, and supports the goal of reducing code duplication across different versions.A few points to consider:
- Ensure that the specific values (max public keys, asset lock balances) are correct.
- Consider adding a comment explaining why the credit withdrawal default constructor version is set to 1 while others are 0.
- Verify that this new structure is consistently used across the codebase to fully realize the benefits of the refactoring.
To ensure consistency across the codebase, you may want to run the following command:
This will help verify that the new constant is properly integrated and used throughout the project.
✅ Verification successful
Usage of
STATE_TRANSITION_VERSIONS_V2is properly integrated across the codebase.All instances of
STATE_TRANSITION_VERSIONS_V2have been verified in relevant files, ensuring consistent application of the refactoring. No issues detected in its integration.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of STATE_TRANSITION_VERSIONS_V2 and related structures rg -i "STATE_TRANSITION_VERSIONS_V2|DPPStateTransitionVersions"Length of output: 1612
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_contract_method_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-5: LGTM: Imports are well-structured and necessary.The imports are correctly scoped and include all the required structs for the constant definition. This demonstrates good organization and modularity in the codebase.
10-32: Verify the intention of initializing all version numbers to 0.All method versions are currently set to 0. While this is consistent, it's worth confirming if this accurately reflects the initial versions of these methods or if some should have different starting versions.
Could you clarify if initializing all versions to 0 is intentional, or if some methods should have different initial versions?
7-33: Verify the completeness of the contract method versioning.The structure covers a wide range of contract operations, including proving, applying, inserting, updating, cost estimation, and retrieval. However, it would be beneficial to confirm that this encompasses all necessary contract-related methods in the system.
Could you confirm that this versioning structure covers all the necessary contract-related methods, or if there are any additional categories or methods that should be included?
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_serialization_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-3: LGTM: Appropriate imports and module structure.The import of
FeatureVersionBoundsand the declaration of thev1submodule establish a clear structure for version management.
1-29: Overall: Well-structured version management for DPP state transitions.This file introduces a clear and comprehensive structure for managing state transition serialization versions in the DPP system. The code is well-organized, follows Rust best practices, and provides a solid foundation for version control across various state transition types.
While the functionality appears sound, adding brief documentation to explain the purpose of the structs and the rationale behind certain design decisions (like the
DocumentFeatureVersionBoundswrapper) would further enhance the code's clarity and maintainability.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_state_transition_method_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-5: LGTM: Imports are well-organized and appropriate.The imports are correctly structured, using relative paths within the crate. They bring in the necessary types for defining the
DRIVE_STATE_TRANSITION_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant.
7-36: LGTM: Well-structured constant definition.The
DRIVE_STATE_TRANSITION_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant is comprehensively defined, covering various aspects of state transitions including operations and high-level operation conversions. The structure is clear and organized.
1-36: Overall, the new constant provides a solid foundation for version management.This new file introduces a comprehensive structure for managing state transition method versions. The constant
DRIVE_STATE_TRANSITION_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1provides a clear and organized way to track versions for various operations and transitions.While the current implementation sets all versions to 0, which is likely intentional for an initial setup, it's important to ensure that this aligns with the broader versioning strategy of the project. As the project evolves, these version numbers will likely be updated to reflect changes in the implementation of different operations.
The introduction of this constant aligns well with the PR objective of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions, contributing to improved maintainability and reduced redundancy in version management.
To ensure this new constant is properly integrated and doesn't conflict with existing code, you may want to run the following check:
This will help verify that this new constant doesn't overlap with or replace any existing constants with similar names.
✅ Verification successful
No conflicts found with DRIVE_STATE_TRANSITION_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1
The constant
DRIVE_STATE_TRANSITION_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1is properly integrated and does not conflict with existing constants. All occurrences reference the correct version, ensuring consistent version management across the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for any other occurrences of DRIVE_STATE_TRANSITION_METHOD_VERSIONS rg "DRIVE_STATE_TRANSITION_METHOD_VERSIONS" --type rustLength of output: 1193
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_vote_method_versions/v1.rs (2)
1-5: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and well-organized.The imports are correctly structured and include all necessary types for the constant declaration. There are no unnecessary or unused imports, which is good for code cleanliness.
1-38: Summary: File aligns well with PR objectives.This new file successfully introduces a structured approach to versioning Drive vote methods, which aligns perfectly with the PR's goal of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. By centralizing version information in this constant, it likely contributes to reducing code duplication across different versions.
The changes are indeed structural rather than functional, as stated in the PR objectives. This file provides a clear, organized way to manage and update method versions, which should enhance maintainability going forward.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_vote_method_versions/v2.rs (2)
1-5: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and concise.The imports are well-structured and include all the necessary types used in the constant declaration. There are no unused imports, which is good for code cleanliness.
7-7: LGTM: Constant declaration is well-formed and appropriately named.The constant
DRIVE_VOTE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V2is correctly declared as public and follows Rust's naming conventions for constants. TheV2suffix aligns with the PR's objective of version refactoring.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_credit_pool_method_versions/v1.rs (2)
1-6: LGTM: Imports are well-structured and necessary.The imports are correctly bringing in all the required structs for defining the
CREDIT_POOL_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant. The use of the parent module indicates a well-organized code structure.
1-41: Overall assessment: Well-structured and aligned with refactoring objectives.This new file successfully introduces a constant
CREDIT_POOL_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1that encapsulates all credit pool method versions in a clear and maintainable structure. The implementation aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions.Key points:
- Logical grouping of related methods
- Consistent naming conventions
- Clear initial versioning (all set to 0)
The structure provided here should facilitate easier management and updates of method versions in the future, contributing to improved maintainability of the codebase.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/mod.rs (4)
1-13: Well-structured module organization.The modular approach with separate versioning for different DPP components is excellent. This structure aligns well with the PR's objective of reducing code duplication and improving maintainability. The consistent naming convention using the 'dpp_' prefix enhances readability.
15-27: Consistent and well-organized use statements.The use statements are logically structured, providing clear access to the version structs for each DPP component. The consistent naming convention with the 'DPP' prefix enhances code readability and maintainability.
29-45: Well-structured DPPVersion struct.The DPPVersion struct effectively encapsulates all the version information for DPP components, which aligns well with the PR's goal of improving version management. The derived traits (Clone, Debug, Default) are appropriate for this kind of structure and will facilitate easier debugging and initialization.
1-45: Excellent refactoring of DPP versioning structure.This new file introduces a well-organized and modular approach to DPP version management, effectively addressing the PR's objectives of reducing code duplication and improving maintainability. The consistent naming conventions and logical structure will greatly enhance the readability and maintainability of the codebase.
A few key points:
- The modular structure allows for easier updates and extensions to individual DPP components.
- The
DPPVersionstruct provides a centralized way to manage all version-related information.- The TODO comment about splitting state transition serialization versions by type should be addressed in future iterations.
Overall, this refactoring significantly improves the organization of the DPP versioning system.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_contract_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-8: LGTM: Imports and constant declaration look good.The imports are appropriate for the types used in the constant, and the constant is correctly declared as public for use across the codebase.
9-17: Verify max_serialized_size and initial version numbers.The
max_serialized_sizeof 65000 seems reasonable, but please confirm if this is the intended limit. Also, all version fields are set to 0, which suggests this is an initial version. Could you verify if this is correct?
23-54: Verify max_depth value and consider adding structure documentation.The
document_type_versionsstructure is well-organized but complex. Most fields are consistently set to 0, aligning with the initial version concept. However,max_depthis set to 256. Please confirm if this is the intended value.Consider adding documentation to explain the purpose and significance of this complex structure, especially for fields like
max_depththat have non-zero values.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_grove_method_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-4: Imports look good.The imports are appropriate for the content of the file, bringing in all necessary types for defining the
DRIVE_GROVE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant.
30-45: Batch methods are well-defined and consistent.The batch methods cover a comprehensive range of operations, and all versions are consistently set to 0, which is appropriate for this initial version.
1-54: Overall, excellent implementation of Grove method versioning.This file successfully introduces a well-structured and comprehensive versioning system for Grove methods. The consistent use of version 0 across all methods is appropriate for this initial implementation. The clear organization into basic, batch, apply, and costs categories enhances readability and will facilitate future maintenance.
To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify that this new constant is properly utilized:
✅ Verification successful
DRIVE_GROVE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1 Usage Verified
The
DRIVE_GROVE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant is consistently and correctly utilized across the codebase with no discrepancies found.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/v2.rspackages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v2_test.rs🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of DRIVE_GROVE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1 constant # Test: Search for references to DRIVE_GROVE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1 rg -A 5 'DRIVE_GROVE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1'Length of output: 4938
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_verify_method_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-6: Imports look good and are well-organized.The imports are appropriate for the file's content, with no unused imports. They are logically grouped and organized.
8-57: Well-structured constant definition with logical grouping.The
DRIVE_VERIFY_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1constant is well-organized, grouping related verification methods into categories. This structure allows for fine-grained version control of individual methods, which is a good practice for maintainability.
8-57: Verify if setting all versions to 0 is intentional.All version numbers are currently set to 0. While this might be intentional for an initial setup, it's worth confirming that this is the desired state for this constant.
To check if this is consistent across the codebase, you can run the following command:
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_verify_method_versions/mod.rs (3)
5-14: LGTM: Well-structured main versioning struct.The
DriveVerifyMethodVersionsstruct is well-organized, grouping related verification methods into separate fields. This structure promotes modularity and makes it easier to manage different aspects of the drive system independently.
16-20: LGTM: Concise contract verification versioning.The
DriveVerifyContractMethodVersionsstruct is well-defined, focusing on contract-related verification methods. The use ofFeatureVersionfor each method allows for independent versioning, which is a good practice for managing evolving features.
57-65: LGTM: Well-structured system verification versioning.The
DriveVerifySystemMethodVersionsstruct is well-organized, covering various system-level verification methods. Each method usesFeatureVersionfor independent versioning, which is a good practice for managing evolving features. The method names are clear and focused, making the purpose of each verification method evident.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_serialization_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-4: LGTM: Import statements are appropriate and concise.The import statements correctly bring in the necessary types and structures for version management, without any apparent redundancy.
1-105: Overall, the file is well-structured and serves its purpose effectively.This new file introduces a comprehensive constant for managing state transition serialization versions in the DPP (Decentralized Payment Protocol). The structure is clean, organized, and allows for easy future extensions if needed.
Key points:
- Imports are appropriate and concise.
- The constant covers a wide range of state transitions for both identity and document features.
- Consistent use of version bounds set to 0 across all state transitions (clarification requested in a previous comment).
The file aligns well with the PR objective of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions, contributing to improved maintainability and reduced redundancy in the codebase.
6-105: Constant declaration and structure look good, but clarification needed on version bounds.The
STATE_TRANSITION_SERIALIZATION_VERSIONS_V1constant is well-structured and comprehensive, covering various state transitions for identity and document features. The naming convention follows best practices for constants.However, all version bounds (min, max, and default) are set to 0 for every state transition. While this might be intentional for an initial version setup, it's worth confirming:
- Is setting all bounds to 0 intentional?
- If yes, what does version 0 signify in this context?
- Are there plans to update these bounds in future versions?
To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's check for any other usage or definition of these version bounds:
✅ Verification successful
Version bounds are consistent across the codebase
All instances of
FeatureVersionBoundsandDocumentFeatureVersionBoundsin the codebase are set tomin_version: 0,max_version: 0, anddefault_current_version: 0. This consistent configuration indicates that setting all version bounds to 0 is intentional for the initial version setup.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other occurrences of FeatureVersionBounds or DocumentFeatureVersionBounds rg -A 3 "FeatureVersionBounds|DocumentFeatureVersionBounds"Length of output: 60666
packages/rs-dpp/src/document/specialized_document_factory/mod.rs (2)
45-46: Improved version access structureThe updated access pattern for the document factory structure version (
dpp.factory_versions.document_factory_structure_version) aligns well with the PR objectives. This change enhances code organization and maintainability by providing a more structured approach to version management.
65-66: Consistent implementation of version accessThe updated access pattern for the document factory structure version is consistently applied here in the
new_with_entropy_generatormethod. This consistency ensures uniform version management across different factory creation methods, which is commendable.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/protocol_version.rs (3)
Line range hint
36-165: LGTM! Verify unchanged functionality.The constants and methods in the file remain unchanged, which aligns with the PR objective of making structural changes without affecting the platform's behavior. This suggests that the refactoring was successfully focused on the
PlatformVersionstructure.To ensure that the functionality remains unchanged, please run the following script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the core functionality remains unchanged # Test 1: Check for any changes in the PLATFORM_VERSIONS constant rg -p 'pub const PLATFORM_VERSIONS:' packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/protocol_version.rs # Test 2: Verify the implementation of PlatformVersion methods ast-grep --pattern $'impl PlatformVersion { $$$ pub fn get($_, $_) { $$$ } $$$ pub fn get_optional($_, $_) { $$$ } $$$ pub fn get_version_or_latest($_, $_) { $$$ } $$$ }' packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/protocol_version.rs
26-34: LGTM! Check for impacts of removedPlatformArchitectureVersion.The changes to the
PlatformVersionstruct align well with the PR objective of refactoring into sub-versions. The addition ofsystem_data_contractsandsystem_limitsfields, along with the removal ofPlatformArchitectureVersion, should improve maintainability and reduce code duplication.Please run the following script to check for any potential impacts of removing
PlatformArchitectureVersion:#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to PlatformArchitectureVersion # Test: Search for any remaining usage of PlatformArchitectureVersion rg 'PlatformArchitectureVersion' packages/rs-platform-version/src/
12-12: LGTM! Verify new import paths.The changes to the import statements align with the PR objective of refactoring the platform version. The new import for
SystemDataContractVersionsand the updated path forSystemLimitssuggest a more modular structure.Please run the following script to verify the correctness of the new import paths:
Also applies to: 18-18
✅ Verification successful
Import paths verified successfully.
The new imports for
SystemDataContractVersionsandSystemLimitsare correctly set up.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the new modules and their correct paths # Test 1: Check for SystemDataContractVersions rg -p 'pub (struct|enum) SystemDataContractVersions' packages/rs-platform-version/src/ # Test 2: Check for SystemLimits rg -p 'pub (struct|enum) SystemLimits' packages/rs-platform-version/src/Length of output: 428
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the new modules and their correct paths # Test 1: Check for SystemDataContractVersions rg 'pub (struct|enum) SystemDataContractVersions' packages/rs-platform-version/src/ # Test 2: Check for SystemLimits rg 'pub (struct|enum) SystemLimits' packages/rs-platform-version/src/Length of output: 363
packages/rs-dpp/src/document/document_factory/mod.rs (3)
45-46: LGTM: Improved version access structureThe changes to access
document_factory_structure_versionthroughdpp.factory_versionsimprove the modularity and clarity of version handling. This aligns well with the PR's objective of reducing code duplication and enhancing maintainability.
64-65: LGTM: Consistent improvement in version accessThe changes in
new_with_entropy_generatorare consistent with those in thenewmethod, maintaining a uniform approach to accessing the document factory structure version. This consistency enhances the overall code quality and maintainability.
Line range hint
1-180: Summary: Successful refactoring of version managementThe changes in this file successfully implement the PR's objective of refactoring the platform version management. By introducing a more specific and modular way to access the
document_factory_structure_version, the code becomes more maintainable and reduces potential duplication across different versions.These structural changes do not alter the functionality of the
DocumentFactory, which is in line with the PR author's statement. The consistent application of these changes across different methods (newandnew_with_entropy_generator) demonstrates a thorough approach to the refactoring process.Overall, these modifications contribute positively to the codebase's organization and should make future version-related changes easier to implement and manage.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/dpp_versions/dpp_state_transition_versions/mod.rs (6)
6-10:DPPStateTransitionVersionsstruct is well-defined and appropriate.The struct correctly encapsulates state transition versions for documents and identities, enhancing modularity.
12-17:IdentityTransitionVersionsstruct accurately represents identity transition versions.Fields are appropriately typed, and the struct improves code clarity for identity-related transitions.
19-22:IdentityCreditWithdrawalTransitionVersionsstruct is correctly implemented.The struct effectively encapsulates the default constructor version for credit withdrawal transitions.
32-35:DocumentTransitionVersionsstruct is appropriately defined.It effectively groups document batch transition versions, enhancing code organization.
37-40:DocumentsBatchTransitionVersionsstruct correctly includes validation versions.The struct properly encapsulates validation-related versions for document batch transitions.
42-46:DocumentsBatchTransitionValidationVersionsstruct accurately defines validation feature versions.Fields
find_duplicates_by_idandvalidate_base_structureare well-defined and appropriately typed.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_state_transition_method_versions/mod.rs (2)
7-11: Well-structured grouping of state transition method versionsThe
DriveStateTransitionMethodVersionsstruct effectively groups operation methods and high-level conversion methods, enhancing code organization and readability.
35-39: Well-defined operation method versions structThe
DriveStateTransitionOperationMethodVersionsstruct is well-defined and aligns with the overall versioning strategy, enhancing consistency across the codebase.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_contract_method_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-59: Code structure and naming conventions are consistentThe overall code is well-organized, and the naming conventions for structs and fields are consistent and descriptive. This enhances readability and maintainability.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_credit_pool_method_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-49: LGTM on the overall structureThe modularization of method version structs enhances maintainability and reduces code duplication, aligning with the refactoring objectives of the PR. The use of
FeatureVersionand derivingClone,Debug, andDefaulttraits are appropriate and follow best practices.
29-29:⚠️ Potential issueVerify duplicate method version entries
The method
add_update_pending_epoch_refunds_operationsappears in bothDriveCreditPoolEpochsMethodVersions(line 29) andDriveCreditPoolPendingEpochRefundsMethodVersions(line 43). Please verify whether this duplication is intentional or if it should be defined in only one of these structs to avoid confusion.Also applies to: 43-43
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_vote_method_versions/mod.rs (5)
6-14: Code Structure is Well-OrganizedThe
DriveVoteMethodVersionsstruct effectively aggregates the various voting method versions, promoting modularity and maintainability.
16-21: Clear Definition ofDriveVoteFetchMethodVersionsThe
DriveVoteFetchMethodVersionsstruct is appropriately defined with all necessary fields for fetching voting-related data.
23-26: Proper Declaration ofDriveVoteStorageFormMethodVersionsThe
DriveVoteStorageFormMethodVersionsstruct is correctly declared, ensuring version control for storage-related methods.
28-31:DriveVoteSetupMethodVersionsStruct is Correctly DefinedThe struct provides a clear versioning mechanism for setup operations in the voting system.
45-48:DriveVoteInsertMethodVersionsStruct is Appropriately DefinedThe struct accurately captures the versioning for vote insertion methods.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_query_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-68: Overall refactoring enhances modularity and reduces code duplicationThe introduction of the
drive_abci_query_versionsmodule with well-organized structs for different query categories significantly improves the code structure. This aligns with the PR objectives by reducing duplicated code and enhancing maintainability.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_grove_method_versions/mod.rs (2)
1-2: LGTM!The import statement correctly brings in
FeatureVersion, which is essential for defining versioned features in the structs below.
3-4: LGTM!Including the
v1module is appropriate for organizing version-specific implementations.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/v1.rs (1)
1-100: LGTM!The
DRIVE_VERSION_V1constant introduces a comprehensive and well-organized structure for managing drive versioning. This aligns with the PR objective to reduce duplicated code and enhance maintainability. The code is clean, and the usage of separate structs for different method versions improves readability and future scalability.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/v2.rs (3)
21-21:⚠️ Potential issueConfirm Appropriateness of Using
DRIVE_STRUCTURE_V1The
DRIVE_VERSION_V2is usingDRIVE_STRUCTURE_V1for its structure:structure: DRIVE_STRUCTURE_V1,Please confirm if this is intended. If there are structural changes associated with version 2, it might be appropriate to define and use a
DRIVE_STRUCTURE_V2to reflect those changes.
99-99:⚠️ Potential issueVerify
grove_versionConsistencyThe
grove_versionwithinDRIVE_VERSION_V2is set toGROVE_V1:grove_version: GROVE_V1,Please verify if the
GROVE_V1version is compatible withDRIVE_VERSION_V2. If there is aGROVE_V2or an updated version available, consider updating to maintain version consistency.
1-9:⚠️ Potential issueInconsistent Version Module Imports
In the imports, all modules are being referenced from
v1versions except fordrive_vote_method_versions, which is imported fromv2:use crate::version::drive_versions::drive_vote_method_versions::v2::DRIVE_VOTE_METHOD_VERSIONS_V2;Please verify if this inconsistency is intentional. If other modules have
v2versions available, consider updating the imports to ensure consistent versioning across theDRIVE_VERSION_V2definition.You can run the following script to check for the existence of
v2modules in thedrive_versionsdirectory:✅ Verification successful
Inconsistent Version Module Imports
Confirmed that only
drive_vote_method_versionsutilizesv2, which appears intentional based on the current codebase structure.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: List all `v2.rs` files in the `drive_versions` directory fd 'v2.rs' packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/Length of output: 218
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for `v2.rs` files in each drive_versions submodule fd 'v2.rs' packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/ -t fLength of output: 223
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-115: Well-structured implementation of validation versioning.The code is clean, well-organized, and follows the project's conventions. The use of modular versioning enhances maintainability and scalability. Great job on the refactoring!
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v1.rs (1)
14-121: Code structure and initialization look goodThe method versions are correctly structured and initialized, aligning with the project's version management approach.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v3.rs (2)
14-121: Well-Structured Version ManagementThe
DRIVE_ABCI_METHOD_VERSIONS_V3constant is well-organized, with clear categorization of method versions across different components. This enhances maintainability and readability.
14-121: Review Version Number InconsistenciesSeveral methods have their version numbers set to
1while others are at0. Please verify that the incremented version numbers accurately reflect intentional updates or changes in those methods.Run the following script to list all methods with version number
1:Please ensure that these version increments correspond with actual changes in functionality and that all dependent code is updated accordingly.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/v2.rs (1)
14-122: Great job on restructuring the method versionsThe new organization into sub-versions significantly improves maintainability and reduces code duplication as intended. This aligns well with the PR objectives.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_query_versions/v1.rs (1)
8-168: Verify the initialization of version bounds for correctnessAll
FeatureVersionBoundsinstances havemin_version,max_version, anddefault_current_versionset to0. Please confirm that this is intentional and aligns with the desired versioning strategy.I can assist in updating the version bounds if adjustments are needed.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/mod.rs (1)
25-31: Well-StructuredDriveVersionStruct DefinitionThe
DriveVersionstruct is effectively designed, encapsulating the structure and methods for drive versioning, which enhances maintainability and clarity.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_method_versions/mod.rs (1)
1-166: Well-Structured Refactoring Enhances MaintainabilityThe refactoring introduced in this file effectively organizes the Drive ABCI method versions into sub-versions, significantly reducing code duplication and improving maintainability. The use of structured structs for different method groups enhances readability and aligns with Rust best practices.
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/v2.rs (6)
26-34: Ensure consistent initialization ofnonceandadvanced_structurefields across state transitionsThere is inconsistency in how the
nonceandadvanced_structurefields are initialized across different state transitions:
identity_create_state_transition(lines 26-34):nonceisNone,advanced_structureisSome(0)identity_update_state_transition(lines 35-43):nonceisSome(0),advanced_structureisSome(0)identity_top_up_state_transition(lines 44-52):nonceisNone,advanced_structureisNoneidentity_credit_withdrawal_state_transition(lines 54-62):nonceisSome(0),advanced_structureisNoneidentity_credit_transfer_state_transition(lines 64-72):nonceisSome(0),advanced_structureisNonemasternode_vote_state_transition(lines 73-81):nonceisSome(0),advanced_structureisSome(0)Please verify if these initializations are intentional or if they should be standardized for consistency.
Also applies to: 35-43, 44-52, 54-62, 64-72, 73-81
82-90: Check the initialization ofbasic_structurein contract state transitionsIn both
contract_create_state_transition(lines 82-90) andcontract_update_state_transition(lines 91-99), thebasic_structurefield is:
contract_create_state_transition:basic_structureisSome(0)contract_update_state_transition:basic_structureisNoneEnsure that this difference is intentional and that the
basic_structurevalidation is not needed for the update transition.Also applies to: 91-99
100-132: Confirm version numbers for document transition validationsMost of the document transition validation fields are set to
0, except fordocument_create_transition_state_validation, which is set to1(line 126). Please verify that this version number is correct and consistent with the intended versioning scheme.
136-141: ReviewPenaltyAmountsfor accuracyThe
PenaltyAmountsare specified as:PenaltyAmounts { identity_id_not_correct: 50000000, unique_key_already_present: 10000000, validation_of_added_keys_structure_failure: 10000000, validation_of_added_keys_proof_of_possession_failure: 50000000, }Please ensure these values align with the updated penalty policies and are accurate for version 2.
143-144: Evaluate the limits set inevent_constantsThe
event_constantshave the following limits:
maximum_vote_polls_to_process:2(line 143)maximum_contenders_to_consider:100(line 144)Confirm that these values are appropriate for the current system requirements and performance considerations.
1-146: Code structure meets refactoring goals and enhances modularityThe new
DRIVE_ABCI_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V2constant is well-organized, and the refactoring effectively reduces code duplication and improves maintainability as outlined in the PR objectives.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_abci_versions/drive_abci_validation_versions/v3.rs (3)
55-55: Inconsistentbasic_structureVersion inidentity_credit_withdrawal_state_transitionThe
basic_structurefield is set toSome(1), whereas other state transitions have it set toSome(0). Please verify if this version increment is intentional or if it should be consistent with the others.
44-47: Confirm Omitted Validations inidentity_top_up_state_transitionThe fields
advanced_structureandidentity_signaturesare set toNoneinidentity_top_up_state_transition. Is it intended to omit these validations for this state transition?
136-141: Review Penalty Amounts for AppropriatenessThe penalty amounts specified in
PenaltyAmountsare quite substantial. Please ensure that these values are appropriate and align with the penalty strategy across different versions.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_identity_method_versions/v1.rs (3)
1-14: Imports correctly include necessary structs.The
usestatements accurately import all required structs from thedrive_identity_method_versionsmodule, ensuring that all dependencies are properly referenced.
16-151: Initialization ofDRIVE_IDENTITY_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1is comprehensive.The constant
DRIVE_IDENTITY_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1is thoroughly defined, with all nested method versions properly initialized. The organizational structure enhances clarity and maintainability.
47-48: Inconsistent initialization withSome(0)vs.0.The methods
fetch_full_identity(line 47) andfetch_full_identities(line 48) are initialized withSome(0), whereas other methods are set to0. This suggests that these fields are of typeOption<u8>while others areu8. If this distinction is intentional due to optional method versions, consider adding documentation to explain the rationale. Otherwise, ensure consistency in type definitions and initializations.To verify the types of these fields, you can run the following script:
packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/drive_versions/drive_identity_method_versions/mod.rs (2)
17-22: Ensure all feature versions are properly initialized and documentedThe fields within
DriveIdentityWithdrawalMethodVersions, such ascalculate_current_withdrawal_limit, rely onFeatureVersion. Verify that these versions are correctly set elsewhere in the codebase and that their purposes are well-documented for future reference.
72-78: Validate all necessary fetch methods are included for identitiesIn
DriveIdentityFetchMethodVersions, ensure that all required methods for fetching identity data are present and align with the application's needs. This includes methods for public key hashes, attributes, partial identities, and full identities.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v3_test.rs (7)
2-38: Imports are updated to use explicit version constantsThe
usestatements have been updated to import specific version constants from their respective modules. This enhances code readability and maintainability by making version dependencies explicit.
44-44: Drive version updated toDRIVE_VERSION_V2The
drivefield inTEST_PLATFORM_V3has been correctly updated toDRIVE_VERSION_V2, aligning with the new versioning structure.
Line range hint
46-157: DriveAbciVersion fields are updated with the new modular versionsThe
drive_abcifield now includes updated version constants for structures, methods, validation, withdrawal constants, and query versions. This reflects a shift towards a more modular and organized versioning system, which should improve code clarity and future maintainability.
Line range hint
53-53: Verifyconsensus_params_updateversion is set correctlyThe
consensus_params_updatemethod version is set to1. As referenced in the learnings, discrepancies inconsensus_params_updateversions across files may be intentional due to different platform versions. Please confirm that1is the intended version forTEST_PLATFORM_V3.Referenced learnings indicate that discrepancies in
consensus_params_updateversions may be intentional due to different platform versions.
155-157: Validation and withdrawal constants updated to latest versionsThe
validation_and_processingfield is set toDRIVE_ABCI_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V3, andwithdrawal_constantsis set toDRIVE_ABCI_WITHDRAWAL_CONSTANTS_V2. These updates ensure that the validation logic and withdrawal processes are using the most recent versions. Verify that these versions are consistent with the expected behavior for platform version 3.
160-172: DPPVersion fields are appropriately assignedThe
dppfield withinTEST_PLATFORM_V3is assigned updated version constants for costs, validation, state transitions, contracts, documents, identities, voting, asset locks, methods, and factory versions. This modular approach enhances clarity and consistency across the DPP components.
174-176: System data contracts and limits versions are correctly setThe
system_data_contractsandsystem_limitsfields are set toSYSTEM_DATA_CONTRACT_VERSIONS_V1andSYSTEM_LIMITS_V1, respectively. This aligns with the standardized versioning strategy across the platform.packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v2_test.rs (2)
322-322:⚠️ Potential issueClarify the
max_state_transition_sizediscrepancyThe
max_state_transition_sizeis set to20000, with a comment indicating uncertainty:max_state_transition_size: 20000, // Is different in this test version, not sure if this was a mistakePlease verify if this value is intentionally different in this test version or if it needs to be corrected.
Would you like assistance in determining the appropriate value for
max_state_transition_size?
303-315: Ensure version consistency inDPPVersionstructIn the
DPPVersionstruct, most components are set to version V1, butvalidationandvoting_versionsare set to V2. Please confirm that this versioning is intentional and consistent with the overall versioning strategy.To automate this verification, run the following script to check the definitions and usages of these version constants:
✅ Verification successful
Version Consistency Confirmed in
DPPVersionStructThe usage of
DPP_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V2andVOTING_VERSION_V2is intentional and consistent across the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the definitions and usages of version constants set to V2 in `DPPVersion`. # Search for the definitions of the V2 versions rg 'pub const DPP_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V2' rg 'pub const VOTING_VERSION_V2' # Search for their usages across the codebase rg 'DPP_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V2' rg 'VOTING_VERSION_V2'Length of output: 2888
| use crate::version::dpp_versions::dpp_state_transition_conversion_versions::DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions; | ||
|
|
||
| pub const STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V2: DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions = | ||
| DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions { | ||
| identity_to_identity_create_transition: 0, | ||
| identity_to_identity_top_up_transition: 0, | ||
| identity_to_identity_withdrawal_transition: 1, | ||
| identity_to_identity_create_transition_with_signer: 0, | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Verification Complete: Multiple Version Constants in Use
The analysis shows that STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V2 is actively used alongside STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V1. Please verify if the coexistence of both versions is intentional for backward compatibility or if legacy constants should be deprecated.
- Confirm whether
STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V1is still required. - If deprecated, plan for its removal and update all usages to V2.
- Ensure new implementations utilize the V2 constant exclusively.
🔗 Analysis chain
Overall, the changes look good and align with the PR objectives.
This new file introduces a well-structured constant for state transition conversion versions, which contributes to the overall goal of refactoring platform versions into sub-versions. The changes should help reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.
A few points to consider:
- Ensure that this new versioning structure is consistently used across the codebase where applicable.
- Update any relevant documentation to reflect these changes in the versioning system.
- Consider adding brief comments to explain the versioning choices, especially for fields with non-zero values.
To ensure consistency across the codebase, please run the following script:
This script will help verify the consistent usage of the new versioning constant and identify any potential outdated versions that might need updating.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for usage of STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V2 and related constants
# Search for usage of the new constant
echo "Searching for usage of STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V2:"
rg "STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V2" --type rust
# Search for potential outdated version constants
echo "\nChecking for potential outdated version constants:"
rg "STATE_TRANSITION_CONVERSION_VERSIONS_V[0-9]+" --type rust
# Search for related DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions usage
echo "\nChecking for DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions usage:"
rg "DPPStateTransitionConversionVersions" --type rust
Length of output: 5452
| pub mod system_data_contract_versions; | ||
| mod system_limits; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
'system_limits' module is being accessed outside its intended scope.
- The
system_limitsmodule is being used in the following files:packages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v3.rspackages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v4.rspackages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v2.rspackages/rs-platform-version/src/version/system_limits/v1.rspackages/rs-platform-version/src/version/v1.rspackages/rs-platform-version/src/version/protocol_version.rspackages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v2_test.rspackages/rs-platform-version/src/version/mocks/v3_test.rs
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM! Verify impact on dependent modules.
The addition of system_data_contract_versions as a public module and system_limits as a private module aligns well with the PR objectives of restructuring the code to reduce duplication and improve maintainability. These changes, along with the removal of the public contracts module, indicate a shift towards a more modular and encapsulated structure.
To ensure these changes don't introduce unintended consequences, please run the following script to check for any broken imports or references:
Please review the output of this script to ensure that:
- There are no remaining references to the old
contractsmodule. - The new
system_data_contract_versionsmodule is properly used where needed. - The private
system_limitsmodule is not accidentally exposed or used outside its intended scope.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential broken imports or references due to module changes
# Test 1: Check for any remaining references to the old 'contracts' module
echo "Checking for references to the old 'contracts' module:"
rg "use .*::version::contracts" --type rust
# Test 2: Check for usage of the new 'system_data_contract_versions' module
echo "Checking for usage of the new 'system_data_contract_versions' module:"
rg "use .*::version::system_data_contract_versions" --type rust
# Test 3: Verify that 'system_limits' is not accidentally used outside this module
echo "Verifying 'system_limits' is not used outside this module:"
rg "use .*::version::system_limits" --type rust
Length of output: 2566
| pub const DRIVE_STATE_TRANSITION_METHOD_VERSIONS_V1: DriveStateTransitionMethodVersions = | ||
| DriveStateTransitionMethodVersions { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Recommend adding a const assertion for immutability.
To ensure that this constant remains truly constant and immutable at runtime, consider adding a const assertion. This can help catch any accidental modifications during compilation.
You can add the following line after the constant definition:
const _: () = assert!(std::mem::needs_drop::<DriveStateTransitionMethodVersions>() == false);This assertion ensures that the type doesn't contain any fields that need dropping, which is a common property of truly immutable types in Rust.
| insert: DriveVoteInsertMethodVersions { | ||
| register_identity_vote: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| contested_resource_insert: DriveVoteContestedResourceInsertMethodVersions { | ||
| register_contested_resource_identity_vote: 0, | ||
| insert_stored_info_for_contested_resource_vote_poll: 0, | ||
| register_identity_vote: 0, | ||
| add_vote_poll_end_date_query_operations: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| cleanup: DriveVoteCleanupMethodVersions { | ||
| remove_specific_vote_references_given_by_identity: 0, | ||
| remove_specific_votes_given_by_identity: 0, | ||
| remove_contested_resource_vote_poll_end_date_query_operations: 1, | ||
| remove_contested_resource_vote_poll_votes_operations: 0, | ||
| remove_contested_resource_vote_poll_documents_operations: 1, | ||
| remove_contested_resource_vote_poll_contenders_operations: 1, | ||
| remove_contested_resource_top_level_index_operations: 0, | ||
| remove_contested_resource_info_operations: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| setup: DriveVoteSetupMethodVersions { | ||
| add_initial_vote_tree_main_structure_operations: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| storage_form: DriveVoteStorageFormMethodVersions { | ||
| resolve_with_contract: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| fetch: DriveVoteFetchMethodVersions { | ||
| fetch_identities_voting_for_contenders: 0, | ||
| fetch_contested_document_vote_poll_stored_info: 0, | ||
| fetch_identity_contested_resource_vote: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Action Required: Document Non-Zero Version Numbers in Cleanup Struct
No documentation or comments were found explaining the non-zero values in the cleanup struct and remove_contested_resource methods. Please add explanations to clarify the purpose of these specific version numbers.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM: Well-structured versioning scheme for drive vote methods.
The constant provides a comprehensive versioning structure for various drive vote methods. The use of 0 for most fields suggests initial or default versions, which aligns with the refactoring objective.
Verify the non-zero version numbers in the cleanup struct.
Some fields in the cleanup struct are set to 1 instead of 0. Please confirm if this is intentional and if these methods have indeed been updated or require different handling.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any references or explanations for the non-zero version numbers in the cleanup struct.
# Test: Search for comments or documentation related to the cleanup struct versions
rg -i "cleanup.*version" --type rust
rg -i "remove_contested_resource.*version" --type rust
Length of output: 2492
| #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] | ||
| pub struct IdentityTransitionAssetLockVersions { | ||
| pub required_asset_lock_duff_balance_for_processing_start_for_identity_create: u64, | ||
| pub required_asset_lock_duff_balance_for_processing_start_for_identity_top_up: u64, | ||
| pub validate_asset_lock_transaction_structure: FeatureVersion, | ||
| pub validate_instant_asset_lock_proof_structure: FeatureVersion, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider simplifying lengthy field names for readability.
The field names in IdentityTransitionAssetLockVersions are quite long, which might affect readability. Consider renaming them for clarity.
For example:
-pub required_asset_lock_duff_balance_for_processing_start_for_identity_create: u64,
+pub min_duff_balance_identity_create: u64,
-pub required_asset_lock_duff_balance_for_processing_start_for_identity_top_up: u64,
+pub min_duff_balance_identity_top_up: u64,This makes the code more concise while retaining the necessary information.
📝 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.
| #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] | |
| pub struct IdentityTransitionAssetLockVersions { | |
| pub required_asset_lock_duff_balance_for_processing_start_for_identity_create: u64, | |
| pub required_asset_lock_duff_balance_for_processing_start_for_identity_top_up: u64, | |
| pub validate_asset_lock_transaction_structure: FeatureVersion, | |
| pub validate_instant_asset_lock_proof_structure: FeatureVersion, | |
| } | |
| #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] | |
| pub struct IdentityTransitionAssetLockVersions { | |
| pub min_duff_balance_identity_create: u64, | |
| pub min_duff_balance_identity_top_up: u64, | |
| pub validate_asset_lock_transaction_structure: FeatureVersion, | |
| pub validate_instant_asset_lock_proof_structure: FeatureVersion, | |
| } |
| identity_signatures: None, | ||
| advanced_minimum_balance_pre_check: None, | ||
| nonce: None, | ||
| state: 0, | ||
| transform_into_action: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| identity_credit_withdrawal_state_transition: | ||
| DriveAbciStateTransitionValidationVersion { | ||
| basic_structure: Some(0), | ||
| advanced_structure: None, | ||
| identity_signatures: None, | ||
| advanced_minimum_balance_pre_check: Some(0), | ||
| nonce: Some(0), | ||
| state: 0, | ||
| transform_into_action: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| identity_credit_withdrawal_state_transition_purpose_matches_requirements: 0, | ||
| identity_credit_transfer_state_transition: DriveAbciStateTransitionValidationVersion { | ||
| basic_structure: Some(0), | ||
| advanced_structure: None, | ||
| identity_signatures: None, | ||
| advanced_minimum_balance_pre_check: Some(0), | ||
| nonce: Some(0), | ||
| state: 0, | ||
| transform_into_action: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| masternode_vote_state_transition: DriveAbciStateTransitionValidationVersion { | ||
| basic_structure: None, | ||
| advanced_structure: Some(0), | ||
| identity_signatures: None, | ||
| advanced_minimum_balance_pre_check: Some(0), | ||
| nonce: Some(0), | ||
| state: 0, | ||
| transform_into_action: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| contract_create_state_transition: DriveAbciStateTransitionValidationVersion { | ||
| basic_structure: Some(0), | ||
| advanced_structure: None, | ||
| identity_signatures: None, | ||
| advanced_minimum_balance_pre_check: None, | ||
| nonce: Some(0), | ||
| state: 0, | ||
| transform_into_action: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| contract_update_state_transition: DriveAbciStateTransitionValidationVersion { | ||
| basic_structure: None, | ||
| advanced_structure: None, | ||
| identity_signatures: None, | ||
| advanced_minimum_balance_pre_check: None, | ||
| nonce: Some(0), | ||
| state: 0, | ||
| transform_into_action: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| documents_batch_state_transition: DriveAbciDocumentsStateTransitionValidationVersions { | ||
| balance_pre_check: 0, | ||
| basic_structure: 0, | ||
| advanced_structure: 0, | ||
| state: 0, | ||
| revision: 0, | ||
| transform_into_action: 0, | ||
| data_triggers: DriveAbciValidationDataTriggerAndBindingVersions { | ||
| bindings: 0, | ||
| triggers: DriveAbciValidationDataTriggerVersions { | ||
| create_contact_request_data_trigger: 0, | ||
| create_domain_data_trigger: 0, | ||
| create_identity_data_trigger: 0, | ||
| create_feature_flag_data_trigger: 0, | ||
| create_masternode_reward_shares_data_trigger: 0, | ||
| delete_withdrawal_data_trigger: 0, | ||
| reject_data_trigger: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| is_allowed: 0, | ||
| document_create_transition_structure_validation: 0, | ||
| document_delete_transition_structure_validation: 0, | ||
| document_replace_transition_structure_validation: 0, | ||
| document_transfer_transition_structure_validation: 0, | ||
| document_purchase_transition_structure_validation: 0, | ||
| document_update_price_transition_structure_validation: 0, | ||
| document_create_transition_state_validation: 0, | ||
| document_delete_transition_state_validation: 0, | ||
| document_replace_transition_state_validation: 0, | ||
| document_transfer_transition_state_validation: 0, | ||
| document_purchase_transition_state_validation: 0, | ||
| document_update_price_transition_state_validation: 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| process_state_transition: 0, | ||
| state_transition_to_execution_event_for_check_tx: 0, | ||
| penalties: PenaltyAmounts { | ||
| identity_id_not_correct: 50000000, | ||
| unique_key_already_present: 10000000, | ||
| validation_of_added_keys_structure_failure: 10000000, | ||
| validation_of_added_keys_proof_of_possession_failure: 50000000, | ||
| }, | ||
| event_constants: DriveAbciValidationConstants { | ||
| maximum_vote_polls_to_process: 2, | ||
| maximum_contenders_to_consider: 100, | ||
| }, | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add Rust doc comments to public constants for better clarity
Consider adding documentation comments (///) to the public constant DRIVE_ABCI_VALIDATION_VERSIONS_V1 and its fields. This enhances code readability and helps maintain clarity, especially for external users of the library.
| contract_update_state_transition: DriveAbciStateTransitionValidationVersion { | ||
| basic_structure: None, | ||
| advanced_structure: None, | ||
| identity_signatures: None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing Validation Versions in contract_update_state_transition
Both basic_structure and advanced_structure are set to None in the contract_update_state_transition. Should these fields have assigned version numbers to enable their respective validations?
| #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] | ||
| pub struct DriveIdentityMethodVersions { | ||
| pub fetch: DriveIdentityFetchMethodVersions, | ||
| pub prove: DriveIdentityProveMethodVersions, | ||
| pub keys: DriveIdentityKeysMethodVersions, | ||
| pub update: DriveIdentityUpdateMethodVersions, | ||
| pub insert: DriveIdentityInsertMethodVersions, | ||
| pub contract_info: DriveIdentityContractInfoMethodVersions, | ||
| pub cost_estimation: DriveIdentityCostEstimationMethodVersions, | ||
| pub withdrawals: DriveIdentityWithdrawalMethodVersions, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using macros to reduce repetitive struct definitions
The DriveIdentityMethodVersions struct and its associated structs follow a repetitive pattern with similar field declarations. Implementing Rust macros can help generate these structs dynamically, reducing code duplication and enhancing maintainability.
| #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] | ||
| pub struct DriveIdentityWithdrawalTransactionIndexMethodVersions { | ||
| pub fetch_next_withdrawal_transaction_index: FeatureVersion, | ||
| pub add_update_next_withdrawal_transaction_index_operation: FeatureVersion, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] | ||
| pub struct DriveIdentityWithdrawalTransactionQueueMethodVersions { | ||
| pub add_enqueue_untied_withdrawal_transaction_operations: FeatureVersion, | ||
| pub dequeue_untied_withdrawal_transactions: FeatureVersion, | ||
| pub remove_broadcasted_withdrawal_transactions_after_completion_operations: FeatureVersion, | ||
| pub move_broadcasted_withdrawal_transactions_back_to_queue_operations: FeatureVersion, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Review the depth of nested structs for better code organization
The nesting of structs within DriveIdentityWithdrawalTransactionMethodVersions, such as index and queue, adds complexity. Consider flattening the structure or modularizing related methods to improve code navigation and understanding.
| #[derive(Clone, Debug, Default)] | ||
| pub struct DriveIdentityKeysMethodVersions { | ||
| pub fetch: DriveIdentityKeysFetchMethodVersions, | ||
| pub prove: DriveIdentityKeysProveMethodVersions, | ||
| pub insert: DriveIdentityKeysInsertMethodVersions, | ||
| pub insert_key_hash_identity_reference: DriveIdentityKeyHashesToIdentityInsertMethodVersions, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Potential consolidation of key-related method versions
The DriveIdentityKeysMethodVersions struct contains multiple nested structs for fetching, proving, and inserting keys. Evaluate whether these can be consolidated or simplified to reduce complexity while maintaining clarity.
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Platform Version was a bit of a mess with a lot of duplicated code between versions.
What was done?
Cleaned this up with sub versions
How Has This Been Tested?
Should not be an actually code change, just structure. But ran tests anyways.
Breaking Changes
Should not be an actually code change, just structure.
Checklist:
For repository code-owners and collaborators only
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation