-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 348
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
EPIC: Add an official spec for the app #650
Comments
One alternative approach is to unarchive the specs repo and remove the outdated specs. |
Per-repo specs will be easier to maintain, as each team can update spec in tandem with implementation changes. |
I'm going to use this comment to continually add reminders as I think of them. Others should feel free to edit this comment or post their own comment as well. we introduced a new validity rule here for |
Relevant: #727 |
nice!! I didn't see that |
Can we turn this into a tracking issues @evan-forbes |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
referencing a comment with changes that are likely a good idea to include above in some way |
here's an list from a recent sync on overhauling the spec. Some of these are duplicates from the main comment in this issue 🙏 |
## Overview Figured we could at least use this as a place holder as a high level summary of celestia-app, and to point to all the other portions of the application. part of and closes #743 part of #650 [rendered](https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/blob/b44960898f59ea3ed86430828606cdc72107a0be/specs/src/specs/block_validity_rules.md) ## Checklist - [x] New and updated code has appropriate documentation - [x] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing - [x] Required CI checks are passing - [x] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates - [x] Linked issues closed with keywords --------- Co-authored-by: Callum Waters <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sanaz Taheri <[email protected]>
## Overview Figured we could at least use this as a place holder as a high level summary of celestia-app, and to point to all the other portions of the application. part of and closes celestiaorg#743 part of celestiaorg#650 [rendered](https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/blob/b44960898f59ea3ed86430828606cdc72107a0be/specs/src/specs/block_validity_rules.md) ## Checklist - [x] New and updated code has appropriate documentation - [x] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing - [x] Required CI checks are passing - [x] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates - [x] Linked issues closed with keywords --------- Co-authored-by: Callum Waters <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sanaz Taheri <[email protected]>
## Overview Figured we could at least use this as a place holder as a high level summary of celestia-app, and to point to all the other portions of the application. part of and closes #743 part of #650 [rendered](https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/blob/b44960898f59ea3ed86430828606cdc72107a0be/specs/src/specs/block_validity_rules.md) ## Checklist - [x] New and updated code has appropriate documentation - [x] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing - [x] Required CI checks are passing - [x] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates - [x] Linked issues closed with keywords --------- Co-authored-by: Callum Waters <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sanaz Taheri <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 5bcf4ad)
are there still issues that we think are worth blocking here or can we finally close this issue? imo I think if we want to do another round of spec refactors/updates/additions we should reevaluate and create another epic I'll close this issue without further feedback at the end of the week |
While archived, the specs contain a lot of really important and critical designs that are effectively cannon. We should move as much as we can over from them, while refactoring, modifying, and updating to match the current implementation.
some special love is needed for our the encoding section, as its much more difficult to decipher the share splitting/merging implementation
FillSquare
method for the testnode #866Pure specs
ProcessProposal
#743SignedTransaction*
#751message
=>blob
where applicable #995availableDataHeader
fromBlock
#1007x/blob
module #1067message
=>blob
#1532Needs implementation
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: