Stable cadence refactor #6
Conversation
|
Update: As of this writing, |
…able Add dependency audit contract
sisyphusSmiling
force-pushed
the
stable-cadence-refactor
branch
from
96be0ad to
d00b755
Compare
sisyphusSmiling
force-pushed
the
stable-cadence-refactor
branch
from
d00b755 to
876e7d9
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## stable-cadence #6 +/- ##
=================================================
Coverage ? 83.89%
=================================================
Files ? 6
Lines ? 298
Branches ? 0
=================================================
Hits ? 250
Misses ? 48
Partials ? 0 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| return self.delegatedUpdaters.keys | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// Allows for the delegation of contract updates as defined within the Updater resource | ||
| /// | ||
| access(all) fun delegate(updaterCap: Capability<&Updater>) { | ||
| access(all) fun delegate(updaterCap: Capability<auth(UpdateContract) &Updater>) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm assuming that the functions in this resource don't need entitlements since they require the capability to call, but I just wanted to flag just in case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's right, only those that are currently entitled need to be privileged. delegate and removeAsUpdater can be public as they allow & remove delegation to this resource and those are necessarily called by the owner of the underyling Updater since the caps are entitled.
| let updaterPrivatePath = PrivatePath( | ||
| identifier: "StagedContractUpdatesUpdater_".concat( | ||
| let updaterCapStoragePath = StoragePath( | ||
| identifier: "StagedContractUpdatesUpdaterCapability_".concat( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did this string change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So here I replaced the deprecated private path with storage path. Since we no longer have private paths by which to manage issued capabilities, I instead store the issued capability in storage for easy traceability and revocation. Ultimately, what's stored at that path is no longer and Updater but a capability on an Updater, hence the change in path identifier.
Does that capability management scheme make sense or see any problems with that change?
Also, FWIW this contract isn't deployed on TN or MN but updating it here to diminish any tech debt and because the contract may be useful as reference.
Related: #1
This PR updates repo contents for Cadence 1.0 compatibility. While the
MigrationStagingContractwon't be used after 1.0 migration, staging and updating the contract will enhance auditability and transparency post-migration, enabling the migrated contracts can be validated against the code as staged. Migrating the contract also allows us to clean up the account after some time if need be.Refactors for
StagedContractUpdatesare also included. Although this contract was not used as a mechanism for migration as originally intended, others may still find it useful moving forward to coordinate updates to distributed contract system.