Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
FIP-0083: Add built-in Actor events in the Verified Registry, Miner and Market Actors #872
FIP-0083: Add built-in Actor events in the Verified Registry, Miner and Market Actors #872
Changes from 9 commits
3974c92
df5bfca
bea0cf0
edba91f
6ea0be3
af82b6d
9df8f31
979b035
7eb8da9
33f250c
09ac0c6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm pretty sure we don't want to introduce "CBOR" (
0x51
) to the chain, I don't believe we use that anywhere at the moment and it would be a shame to add that to the mix. I think what we want here is "DAG-CBOR" (0x71
).The two problems with just plain CBOR are:
Also since
0x51
is a rarely used codec in our stack, applications that consume this data will often not even have a codec registered to decode it, thereby adding an additional (tho minor) burden for consuming or validating this data.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rvagg Thanks for this ! I've added this consideration to the FIP discussion
#754 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
out of curiosity, is there any reason why this can't just be an index key
allocation
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We want users to be able to quickly query for/filter for events where (key="$type" AND value="allocation").
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
peer: I think there is a value to also expose
amount
as a value in this event for datacap explorers - so they can get metrics like total datacap allocated by simply subscribing the events without having to query the allocation stateThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
similarly, would be great if we can also expose the pieceCID, thinking of FIL+ bot and such tools can take advantage of it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Captured in FIP discussion at #754 (comment).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
similar suggestion on adding the amount
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Captured in FIP discussion at #754 (comment).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we could use more information here for sector <> data monitoring. i.e: adding a
value
ofhas-data
boolean; piece informations (cid, associated claim, market actor address)(in general, the reason why we are adding these information is to ease the integration of data storage toolings, so unless there is a reason for limiting the info expose, i.e: costly gas (I dont think its going to be $$ tho?), size.. otherwise I think we should try to expose necessary info to enable toolings to be able to get necessary information by just subscribing the events without further message monitoring &state diff needed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We are including more information to this event in #897 and #754 (reply in thread).
This includes
piece-cid
,piece size
andunsealed cid
. Wdym by thehas-data
boolean ?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The discussion about the
has-data
flag is at #754 (comment).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
how much gas are we talking about here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't expect this to be significant but the exact amount here has yet to be profiled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
editor: adding a note about #820? depends the sequence of fip acceptances and finalizations, this note might be less relevant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
remove
should
or ->will
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.