Integrate frostfsid into NNS #119

Merged
fyrchik merged 1 commit from achuprov/frostfs-contract:feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns into master 2024-11-20 15:43:58 +00:00
Member
No description provided.
achuprov added 2 commits 2024-10-21 11:30:00 +00:00
Signed-off-by: Alexander Chuprov <a.chuprov@yadro.com>
[#118] nns: Integrate 'frostfsid'
All checks were successful
DCO action / DCO (pull_request) Successful in 1m2s
Code generation / Generate wrappers (pull_request) Successful in 1m27s
Tests / Tests (pull_request) Successful in 1m35s
11d5b17bac
Signed-off-by: Alexander Chuprov <a.chuprov@yadro.com>
fyrchik requested changes 2024-10-21 12:33:00 +00:00
Dismissed
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
package common
func HexToBytes(s []byte) []byte {
Owner

IMO having such low-level functions on a contract level is not worth it.
Do we need them?

IMO having such low-level functions on a contract level is not worth it. Do we _need_ them?
Member

TBH, the usage of this function can barely be common (so, I agree with @fyrchik). The second point is that the input parameter seems irrelevant to the function's name - hex is the slice of bytes? I believe the function can be renamed or commented

TBH, the usage of this function can barely be common (so, I agree with @fyrchik). The second point is that the input parameter seems irrelevant to the function's name - hex is the slice of bytes? I believe the function can be renamed or commented
Author
Member

Fixed. Now using base 56.

Fixed. Now using base 56.
nns/frostfsid.go Outdated
@ -0,0 +16,4 @@
)
func checkFrostfsID(ctx storage.Context) bool {
frostfsIDAddress := getRecordsByType(ctx, []byte(tokenIDFromName(FrostfsIDNNSName)), FrostfsIDNNSName, TXT)
Owner

We can store address in base-58 and use 29bb3ff1cf/pkg/core/native/std.go (L108)

We can store address in base-58 and use https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/blob/29bb3ff1cf4738ada24f075f5b398c1e70522778/pkg/core/native/std.go#L108
Owner

See #96

See https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-contract/issues/96
Author
Member

fixed

fixed
nns/frostfsid.go Outdated
@ -0,0 +24,4 @@
frostfsidAddr := common.ReverseBytes(common.HexToBytes([]byte(frostfsIDAddress[0])))
signers := runtime.CurrentSigners()
for _, signer := range signers {
if res := contract.Call(frostfsidAddr, "getValueForSubjectKey", contract.All, signer.Account, FrostfsIDNNSTLDPermissionKey).(string); res == FrostfsIDTLDRegistrationAllowed {
Owner

Each signer has Scope, that is "bytecode area", where his signature is considered valid.
I may be OK with paying for this transaction (use None scope), but not ok with using my permissions to allow SOMEONE to do whatever they want.

Each signer has `Scope`, that is "bytecode area", where his signature is considered valid. I may be OK with paying for this transaction (use `None` scope), but not ok with using my permissions to allow SOMEONE to do whatever they want.
Owner

Another problem with this line of code is multiple contract.Call() invocations. This is too costly.

Another problem with this line of code is multiple `contract.Call()` invocations. This is too costly.
Owner

I think domain owner should be used here. He will own the domain, he should have the right to register.

I think domain owner should be used here. He will own the domain, he should have the right to register.
Member

Each signer has Scope, that is "bytecode area", where his signature is considered valid.
I may be OK with paying for this transaction (use None scope), but not ok with using my permissions to allow SOMEONE to do whatever they want.

Just for my curiosity. You've said: "use None scope". Will be the contract method called then? I am looking at "getValueForSubjectKey" definition and it's expected that the method is invoked in the read context. So, why can't we use ReadOnly | AllowCall flags then?

> Each signer has `Scope`, that is "bytecode area", where his signature is considered valid. > I may be OK with paying for this transaction (use `None` scope), but not ok with using my permissions to allow SOMEONE to do whatever they want. Just for my curiosity. You've said: "use `None` scope". Will be the contract method called then? I am looking at `"getValueForSubjectKey"` definition and it's expected that the method is invoked in the read context. So, why can't we use `ReadOnly | AllowCall` flags then?
Owner

Signer scope (None, CalledByEntry etc) is different from the call flags (ReadOnly, AllowCall, etc).

Signer scope (`None`, `CalledByEntry` etc) is different from the call flags (`ReadOnly`, `AllowCall`, etc).
Author
Member

fixed

fixed
aarifullin reviewed 2024-10-21 13:46:58 +00:00
@ -0,0 +26,4 @@
}
}
func ReverseBytes(b []byte) []byte {
Member

Please, leave a comment that a copied version of the input slice is being reversed in fact

Please, leave a comment that a copied version of the input slice is being reversed in fact
Author
Member

fixed

fixed
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from 11d5b17bac to 7514f94daf 2024-10-25 08:08:33 +00:00 Compare
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from 7514f94daf to b6983ae888 2024-10-25 08:09:09 +00:00 Compare
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from b6983ae888 to 062998cc6b 2024-10-25 08:19:49 +00:00 Compare
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from 062998cc6b to 1a2fc7dc60 2024-10-25 08:24:30 +00:00 Compare
fyrchik requested changes 2024-10-25 09:19:00 +00:00
Dismissed
@ -41,3 +59,3 @@
func TestNNSGeneric(t *testing.T) {
c := newNNSInvoker(t, false)
c, _ := newNNSInvoker(t, false, false)
Owner

Please, let's not overcomplicate function signatures.
newNNSInvoker is perfectly valid.
We might have another newNNSInvokerWithFrostfsID which reuses newNNSInvoker and do not change unaffected tests. We need it only once (!).

Please, let's not overcomplicate function signatures. `newNNSInvoker` is perfectly valid. We might have another `newNNSInvokerWithFrostfsID` which reuses `newNNSInvoker` and do not change unaffected tests. We need it only once (!).
Author
Member

fixed

fixed
dkirillov reviewed 2024-10-25 13:52:25 +00:00
@ -473,2 +473,4 @@
}
// GetValueForSubjectKey GetSubjectKey returns the value associated with the key for the subject.
func GetValueForSubjectKey(addr interop.Hash160, name string) string {
Member

I suggest to rename this function to GetSubjectKV

I suggest to rename this function to `GetSubjectKV`
Author
Member

Renamed

Renamed
dkirillov marked this conversation as resolved
dkirillov reviewed 2024-10-25 13:55:57 +00:00
nns/frostfsid.go Outdated
@ -0,0 +22,4 @@
}
frostfsIDAddress := getRecordsByType(ctx, []byte(tokenIDFromName(FrostfsIDNNSName)), FrostfsIDNNSName, TXT)
if len(frostfsIDAddress) == 0 {
Member

Should this be

if len(frostfsIDAddress) < 2 {

because below we use frostfsIDAddress[1]
?

Should this be ```golang if len(frostfsIDAddress) < 2 { ``` because below we use `frostfsIDAddress[1]` ?
Author
Member

Do we have a strict requirement to have the address in both Base56 and hex formats? The hex format does not affect functionality.

Do we have a strict requirement to have the address in both `Base56` and `hex` formats? The `hex` format does not affect functionality.
Member

My comment was just about avoiding panic when result will contain just one element and we will try to access the second (frostfsIDAddress[1])

My comment was just about avoiding panic when result will contain just one element and we will try to access the second (`frostfsIDAddress[1]`)
Author
Member

You're right. Fixed.

You're right. Fixed.
Member

I'm not sure. It seems you fixed wrong line

I'm not sure. It seems you fixed wrong line
dkirillov marked this conversation as resolved
dkirillov reviewed 2024-10-25 13:59:58 +00:00
@ -228,2 +228,4 @@
}
// GetValueForSubjectKey invokes `getValueForSubjectKey` method of contract.
func (c *ContractReader) GetValueForSubjectKey(addr util.Uint160, name string) (string, error) {
Member

New method should also be added to frsotfsid/client/client.go file

New method should also be added to `frsotfsid/client/client.go` file
dkirillov marked this conversation as resolved
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from 1a2fc7dc60 to 15c4f02500 2024-10-28 09:34:13 +00:00 Compare
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from 15c4f02500 to cdc4e23eb2 2024-10-28 12:52:18 +00:00 Compare
dkirillov reviewed 2024-10-28 14:27:50 +00:00
@ -268,1 +269,4 @@
// GetSubjectKV invokes `getSubjectKV` method of contract.
func (c Client) GetSubjectKV(addr util.Uint160, name string) (string, error) {
value, err := unwrap.UTF8String(c.act.Call(c.contract, getSubjectKVMethod, addr, name))
Member

It seems we can write just

return unwrap.UTF8String(c.act.Call(c.contract, getSubjectKVMethod, addr, name))
It seems we can write just ```golang return unwrap.UTF8String(c.act.Call(c.contract, getSubjectKVMethod, addr, name)) ```
Author
Member

fixed

fixed
dkirillov marked this conversation as resolved
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from cdc4e23eb2 to b268eb5357 2024-10-29 14:43:47 +00:00 Compare
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from b268eb5357 to 32508245c2 2024-10-29 14:47:41 +00:00 Compare
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from 32508245c2 to 0d76a79d5b 2024-10-30 12:40:15 +00:00 Compare
fyrchik reviewed 2024-10-31 06:50:51 +00:00
nns/frostfsid.go Outdated
@ -0,0 +13,4 @@
const (
FrostfsIDNNSTLDPermissionKey = "nns-allow-register-tld"
FrostfsIDTLDRegistrationAllowed = "allow"
FrostfsIDTLDRegistrationDisallowed = "disallow"
Owner

It is used only in tests, could you remove it?
We explicitly do allow check, everything else should be disallow.

It is used only in tests, could you remove it? We explicitly do allow check, _everything_ else should be disallow.
fyrchik approved these changes 2024-10-31 06:50:55 +00:00
Dismissed
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from 0d76a79d5b to 4881a8a46c 2024-11-01 07:42:03 +00:00 Compare
achuprov dismissed fyrchik's review 2024-11-01 07:42:03 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

fyrchik approved these changes 2024-11-01 08:58:14 +00:00
Dismissed
aarifullin approved these changes 2024-11-02 07:13:34 +00:00
Dismissed
achuprov force-pushed feat/integrate_frostfsid2nns from 4881a8a46c to 48f06df25a 2024-11-02 08:25:18 +00:00 Compare
achuprov dismissed fyrchik's review 2024-11-02 08:25:18 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

achuprov dismissed aarifullin's review 2024-11-02 08:25:18 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

dkirillov approved these changes 2024-11-05 06:53:37 +00:00
dkirillov left a comment
Member

LGTM

LGTM
achuprov referenced this pull request from a commit 2024-11-05 10:57:06 +00:00
fyrchik merged commit 48f06df25a into master 2024-11-05 14:58:57 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No description provided.