-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 349
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
docs: add QGB verify command docs #1287
Conversation
x/qgb/README.md
Outdated
|
||
It currently supports three sub-commands: | ||
|
||
- `msg`: Takes a transaction hash, in hex format, and verifies that the message that has been posted using it has been committed to, by the QGB contract. It only supports one message for now. |
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.
[question] how is this different from the tx
subcommand? Does it verify that the blob shares associated with a BlobTx were committed to? If so should this use blob instead of 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.
the tx
verifies that the transaction carrying the blob was committed to, in the tx namespace.
If so should this use blob instead of msg
100%, thanks a lot for spotting these. I prepared these PRs before the renaming and I missed renaming some places, will change now.
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.
#1289 updating the command too
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
```shell | ||
$ celestia-appd verify --help |
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.
[non-blocking] This code snippet may become out of date with the true --help
docs so instead of copy + pasting the entire help output, I think it may be preferable to include the text that isn't the code snippet and at the bottom say something like:
See the following command for more details
celestia-appd verify --help
and then ensure that these docs make it into the appropriate --help
docs
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.
What do you think is better for docs, providing the commands but without an output, or the commands + their output (that might be outdated after some time)?
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 personally think the latter is better, and we should just update the docs to reflect the new flags/arguments later
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.
What do you think is better for docs, providing the commands but without an output, or the commands + their output (that might be outdated after some time)?
In this scenario: providing the commands but without an output. I think this because the goal of the README is to give developers a high level overview of the QGB module. Developers aren't necessarily users of the QGB module CLI. Users of the QGB CLI should be able to get information on CLI flags via --help
and I expect them to try that before finding this README.
Also (repeated from above): the command output becomes a maintenance burden but I defer to you @sweexordious
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 guess we can leave it as it is for now, with the help output. And, if it becomes a burden later, we can remove it.
Thanks guys for your help 👍 👍
```shell | ||
$ celestia-appd verify --help |
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 personally think the latter is better, and we should just update the docs to reflect the new flags/arguments later
|
||
It currently supports three sub-commands: | ||
|
||
- `blob`: Takes a transaction hash, in hex format, and verifies that the blob paid for by the transaction has been committed to by the QGB contract. It only supports one blob for now. |
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.
Should this specify that a prefix is 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.
Which prefix? A transaction hash in hex format is something like: 7826D5310CD007F82B918359D74A853B4ECB6633E9F231C5477B7F21D68D642D
if I am not missing something
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.
Nvm, I was wrong. Maybe we should still specify that no prefix is required
|
||
- `blob`: Takes a transaction hash, in hex format, and verifies that the blob paid for by the transaction has been committed to by the QGB contract. It only supports one blob for now. | ||
- `shares`: Takes a range of shares and a height, and verifies that these shares have been committed to by the QGB contract. | ||
- `tx`: Takes a transaction hash, in hex format, and verifies that it has been committed to by the QGB contract. |
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.
Same as above
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.
nice, 👍
might also want to link to nmt/rsmt2d/specs, and eventually a diagram would likely be useful to show precising what inclusion proofs are being used for which proof since we're using two or three different proofs
is this mergable @sweexordious ? |
## Overview Closes #1254 We could add more documentation after executing the command to give an example output, but I guess it's better to do it after we have mocked QGB deployed so that we have the same output as users. ## Checklist <!-- Please complete the checklist to ensure that the PR is ready to be reviewed. IMPORTANT: PRs should be left in Draft until the below checklist is completed. --> - [ ] New and updated code has appropriate documentation - [ ] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing - [ ] Required CI checks are passing - [ ] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates - [ ] Linked issues closed with keywords --------- Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
Overview
Closes #1254
We could add more documentation after executing the command to give an example output, but I guess it's better to do it after we have mocked QGB deployed so that we have the same output as users.
Checklist