-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
feat: sui cluster connection #393
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #393 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 89.47% 89.47%
Complexity 77 77
=========================================
Files 42 42
Lines 2698 2698
Branches 37 37
=========================================
Hits 2414 2414
Misses 267 267
Partials 17 17
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
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.
few change requests on comment
} | ||
|
||
entry fun set_validator_threshold(xcall:&mut XCallState,cap:&ConnCap,threshold:u64,_ctx: &mut TxContext){ | ||
let state=get_state_mut(xcall_state::get_connection_states_mut(xcall),cap.connection_id()); |
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.
maybe we should separate configuration capabilities to a separate AdminCap because if the relayer is compromised it can change these settings and submit fake signatures which undermines entire point. But if we have admin cap separate attacker would need to compromise both to submit fake msg.
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.
also instead of adding removing validators it makes sense to have single entry point that changes entire validatorset and threshold. This way we can verify that threshold is valid number whenever validator set changes else there might be scenarios where we remove validators and forget to update threshold. makes sense?
let mut unique_verified_pubkey = vector::empty(); | ||
while (i < signatures.length()) { | ||
let signature = signatures.borrow(i); | ||
let pub_key = get_pubkey_from_signature(signature); |
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.
are we sure that we will receive raw_signature(scheme+pubkey+signature) here ? plz make sure with relay guys, in my opinion they may only send signature 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.
this one was discussed with Biru daii, and planned this!
…oject/xcall-multi into feat/sui-cluster-connection
Description:
Commit Message
see the guidelines for commit messages.
Changelog Entry
Checklist: