Entitlements Migration

[dsainati1]

Adds the entitlements migration as detailed in onflow/flips#95.

Part of #2709

---

• Targeted PR against master branch
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work
• Code follows the standards mentioned here
• Updated relevant documentation
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
• Added appropriate labels

[dsainati1]

This is currently in a draft state, I need to add more tests, especially for the cases where contracts are being loaded from multiple different locations and addresses, and for the case where one or more contracts has not yet been updated and thus fails to typecheck.

[turbolent]

Looks good! Just some last suggestions and questions

[turbolent]

@SupunS Do we have to use the same "trick" that we used in the type value migration, which forces the re-hashing / removal + reinsertion, in this migration?

[SupunS]

ah, that's a good flag. It is currently handled in the migration framework:

cadence/migrations/migration.go

Lines 243 to 246 in f5f26f6

	// Key was migrated.
	// Remove the old value at the old key.
	// This old value will be inserted again with the new key, unless the value is also migrated.
	existingKey = legacyKey(existingKey)

But might need to make a small adjustment to return a 'legacy reference type' for the reference type:

cadence/migrations/migration.go

Lines 353 to 357 in f5f26f6

	case *interpreter.ReferenceStaticType:
	legacyReferencedType := legacyType(typ.ReferencedType)
	if legacyReferencedType != nil {
	return interpreter.NewReferenceStaticType(nil, typ.Authorization, legacyReferencedType)
	}

@dsainati1 A way to test this is to have a type-value as a dictionary key, and the inner type of that type-value should get migrated by the entitlement migrations.

[dsainati1]

A way to test this is to have a type-value as a dictionary key, and the inner type of that type-value should get migrated by the entitlement migrations.

Added this test, which passes with no code changes.

[turbolent]

Let's double check https://discord.com/channels/613813861610684416/1108479699732152503/1194054315644571750,
i.e. wait for https://discord.com/channels/613813861610684416/1194054315644571750/1194066844479393952

(sorry for being overly cautious with the migration code)

[SupunS]

I think we can merge this one. Any changes required for re-hashing can/will be added in #3013

[turbolent]

Great work! Sorry it took so long to get in