-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 331
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
Spec migration #796
Spec migration #796
Conversation
Fixes #792 An initial migration of the existing specs as of [`e59efd63a2165866584833e91e1cb8a6ed8c8203`](https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-specs/tree/e59efd63a2165866584833e91e1cb8a6ed8c8203). It's expected that there are a few broken links and extra content that has to be pruned, along with incorrect content. The important thing is to not miss anything. Also sets up a CI workflow that will build the book.
f7f4b96
to
b2a850a
Compare
Run [Markdown Table Prettifier](https://github.com/darkriszty/MarkdownTablePrettify-VSCodeExt).
What's the status of this? |
Closes #729 [Rendered](https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/blob/e6f00791df41a4257b677df52747e6453856770e/specs/src/specs/data_structures.md#share) Co-authored-by: John Adler <[email protected]>
@musalbas apologies for delayed response. @adlerjohn and I triaged issues in #650 today. I think that the |
Closes #883 Co-authored-by: CHAMI Rachid <[email protected]>
Closes #1120 Co-authored-by: John Adler <[email protected]>
Closes #1151 Co-authored-by: John Adler <[email protected]>
Closes #1175 See the implementation [here](https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/blob/d7ac0b84765db3f649cd82326e3ead066d164637/pkg/shares/tail_padding.go#L9-L21). ## Screenshot <img width="891" alt="Screenshot 2023-01-17 at 11 04 14 AM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3699047/212949826-4b213925-91f0-4653-b375-545c89c17acc.png">
What's the latest with this and generally adding specs to celestia-app/core now? |
This branch is the most up to date version of the specs but it's not publicly visible yet. IMO we should merge this branch to The remaining specs issues are tracked under #650 . We intend on prioritizing specs and documentation work after the core/app feature freeze for incentivized testnet. |
Context: #1353 Closes #1344 ## Screenshot <img width="746" alt="Screenshot 2023-02-08 at 11 55 07 AM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3699047/217598202-15737680-d81b-4771-9940-75aa1830eaa2.png">
…#1420) This aims to clarify that the minimum square size in non-interactive default rules should be a power of 2. For example, for a message of length 23, the minimum square size is `8*8` (but not `5*5`). (based on a discussion in Slack) - [x] NA ~~New and updated code has appropriate documentation~~ - [x] NA ~~New and updated code has new and/or updated testing~~ - [x] Required CI checks are passing - [x] NA ~~Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates~~ - [x] NA ~~Linked issues closed with keywords~~
## Motivation The table of contents at the top of each file can be a maintenance burden. We can auto-generate it with [mdbook-toc](https://github.com/badboy/mdbook-toc). ## Screenshot Before | After --- | --- <img width="500" alt="before" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3699047/222535783-8ad53ec3-43db-4e4b-ad8f-ea974061190b.png"> | <img width="479" alt="after" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3699047/222535796-39c4172d-79b9-4e64-a492-7a68c37f5381.png">
I have some general comments that can possible be followed up at a later point:
|
Overall I'm on-board with basically all of the suggestions you proposed. I think the feedback could be spun out into individual issues that we add to the epic rather than blocking feedback on this PR.
I'm on-board. I agree that the data structures page is long and difficult to read top to bottom so I think multiple logically contained data structures pages would be helpful for readability.
Agreed. I think we should move the rationale/message_block_layout section to block_proposer#laying-out-transactions-and-messages
Perhaps https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/blob/main/x/qgb/README.md
Good question. I think we should not duplicate the proto definitions in the specs unless we have an automated way to update them if the canonical ones change. |
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.
are the markdown linter complaints valid?
ERROR: 2 dead links found!
[✖] .consensus.md#constants → Status: 400
[✖] ../rationale/distributing_rewards.md → Status: 400
other than that I think we're okay to merge (and actually merge, not squash!)
we should also add @cmwaters feedback into the spec epic as @rootulp mentioned because I think its really good
Running make lint locally doesn't catch these errors
They are valid but they don't appear when Docker / hadolint fails but that occurs on other branches too (potentially b/c Github outage). |
Will merge this by EOD tomorrow if no more feedback. |
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.
overall looks good to me, didn't review the specs themselves, waiting until they are deployed and we can submit clean up PRs.
its weird that the docker builds are still failing here despite passing in other PRs, we didn't change anything related here afaict edit: Rootul fixed it |
Co-authored-by: Matthew Sevey <[email protected]>
Ref: #650
Staging branch for specs migration. Draft PR so it can be tracked.