[WIP] Add broadcast confirm sig logic #188
Conversation
|
|
||
| // GetSignBytes returns the Keccak256 hash of the transaction. | ||
| func (msg ConfirmSigMsg) GetSignBytes() []byte { | ||
| return nil |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hope the sdk doesn't complain about this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Works for include deposit message right now so i'm assuming we won't have a problem?
|
Applying above changes. Also removing ability to broadcast arbitrary confirm sigs via flags for now as there is no natural mechanism for validating such signatures |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #188 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 52.02% 49.44% -2.59%
===========================================
Files 28 30 +2
Lines 1359 1430 +71
===========================================
Hits 707 707
- Misses 538 609 +71
Partials 114 114
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| return includeCmd | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| var broadcastSigsCmd = &cobra.Command{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although the anteHandler for this msg will fail if the sig is wrong, we should do client side validation here before sending off the message.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // validate inputs/confirmation signatures if not a fee utxo or deposit utxo | ||
| if !input.IsDeposit() && !input.IsFee() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the input is a deposit or fee, we should not return sdk.Result{}. It should be an error. There are no confirm signature for these kinds of inputs. Otherwise this will get sent to the handler
| return ErrInvalidSignature("invalid signature provided").Result() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| _, ok := ds.GetOutput(ctx, input.Position) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need this if we're already doing GetTxWithPoisition?
| if err != nil { | ||
| return ErrInvalidInput(fmt.Sprintf("failed to retrieve exit information on input, %v", in.Position)).Result() | ||
| } else if exited { | ||
| return ErrExitedInput(fmt.Sprintf("a parent of the input has exited. Position: %v", in.Position)).Result() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we make this message better w.r.t confirm signatures? like 'cannot include confirm signatures of a input transaction that has exited..."
| sdk "github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| // NewSpendHandler sets the inputs of a spend msg to spent and creates new |
| return func(ctx sdk.Context, msg sdk.Msg) sdk.Result { | ||
| confirmSigMsg, ok := msg.(msgs.ConfirmSigMsg) | ||
| if !ok { | ||
| panic("Msg does not implement SpendMsg") |
|
|
||
| for i := 0; i < len(tx1.Transaction.Inputs); i++ { | ||
| // TODO: Is TxIndex sufficient? Also should likely check output index? | ||
| if tx1.Transaction.Inputs[i].Position.TxIndex != confirmSigMsg.Input1.Position.TxIndex { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we add an Equals method to Input and simply to if tx1.Transaction.Input[i].Position.Equals(...) { do the thing}.
Typically do not want to use continue. Should wrap the state updates within the if block for when it should happen. Makes it easier to read.
| panic("Msg does not implement SpendMsg") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /* Get tx, update tx data with confirm sigs, and store updated tx object */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of doing single comments like this. Can you break that up and comment the places where each point occurs
|
|
||
| // SpendMsg implements the RLP interface through `Transaction` | ||
| type ConfirmSigMsg struct { | ||
| Input1 plasma.Input |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we have to restrict to 2 inputs. Why not include as many inputs as someone likes. []Input
(Fixes #148)
Adds the ability to broadcast confirm signatures without spending inputs. Requesting feedback on signature requirements, confirmSigMsg struct, and information to be stored in datastore. Tests pending.