From 4828649706887492423493556cc679a54012f7c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: insumity Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:12:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] added E2E test for the ConsumerModificationProposal --- app/provider/app.go | 1 + tests/e2e/actions.go | 73 ++++ tests/e2e/main.go | 6 + tests/e2e/state.go | 24 ++ tests/e2e/steps_partial_set_security.go | 544 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ tests/e2e/test_driver.go | 2 + tests/integration/distribution.go | 1 + 7 files changed, 651 insertions(+) diff --git a/app/provider/app.go b/app/provider/app.go index 9cf45fe7e3..47eee5c79c 100644 --- a/app/provider/app.go +++ b/app/provider/app.go @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ var ( ibcclientclient.UpgradeProposalHandler, ibcproviderclient.ConsumerAdditionProposalHandler, ibcproviderclient.ConsumerRemovalProposalHandler, + ibcproviderclient.ConsumerModificationProposalHandler, ibcproviderclient.ChangeRewardDenomsProposalHandler, }, ), diff --git a/tests/e2e/actions.go b/tests/e2e/actions.go index 32e8604709..9fdcd2a747 100644 --- a/tests/e2e/actions.go +++ b/tests/e2e/actions.go @@ -399,6 +399,79 @@ func (tr TestConfig) submitConsumerRemovalProposal( tr.waitBlocks(ChainID("provi"), 2, 20*time.Second) } +type SubmitConsumerModificationProposalAction struct { + Chain ChainID + From ValidatorID + Deposit uint + ConsumerChain ChainID + TopN uint32 + ValidatorsPowerCap uint32 + ValidatorSetCap uint32 + Allowlist []string + Denylist []string +} + +func (tr TestConfig) submitConsumerModificationProposal( + action SubmitConsumerModificationProposalAction, + target ExecutionTarget, + verbose bool, +) { + prop := client.ConsumerModificationProposalJSON{ + Title: "Propose the modification of the PSS parameters of a chain", + Summary: "summary of a modification proposal", + ChainId: string(tr.chainConfigs[action.ConsumerChain].ChainId), + Deposit: fmt.Sprint(action.Deposit) + `stake`, + TopN: action.TopN, + ValidatorsPowerCap: action.ValidatorsPowerCap, + ValidatorSetCap: action.ValidatorSetCap, + Allowlist: action.Allowlist, + Denylist: action.Denylist, + } + + bz, err := json.Marshal(prop) + if err != nil { + log.Fatal(err) + } + + jsonStr := string(bz) + if strings.Contains(jsonStr, "'") { + log.Fatal("prop json contains single quote") + } + + //#nosec G204 -- bypass unsafe quoting warning (no production code) + cmd := target.ExecCommand( + "/bin/bash", "-c", fmt.Sprintf(`echo '%s' > %s`, jsonStr, "/temp-proposal.json"), + ) + bz, err = cmd.CombinedOutput() + + if verbose { + log.Println("submitConsumerModificationProposal cmd: ", cmd.String()) + } + + if err != nil { + log.Fatal(err, "\n", string(bz)) + } + + // CONSUMER MODIFICATION PROPOSAL + bz, err = target.ExecCommand( + tr.chainConfigs[action.Chain].BinaryName, + "tx", "gov", "submit-legacy-proposal", "consumer-modification", "/temp-proposal.json", + `--from`, `validator`+fmt.Sprint(action.From), + `--chain-id`, string(tr.chainConfigs[action.Chain].ChainId), + `--home`, tr.getValidatorHome(action.Chain, action.From), + `--gas`, `900000`, + `--node`, tr.getValidatorNode(action.Chain, action.From), + `--keyring-backend`, `test`, + `-y`, + ).CombinedOutput() + if err != nil { + log.Fatal(err, "\n", string(bz)) + } + + // wait for inclusion in a block -> '--broadcast-mode block' is deprecated + tr.waitBlocks(ChainID("provi"), 2, 10*time.Second) +} + type SubmitParamChangeLegacyProposalAction struct { Chain ChainID From ValidatorID diff --git a/tests/e2e/main.go b/tests/e2e/main.go index 9fb57f286a..c7b2b789a7 100644 --- a/tests/e2e/main.go +++ b/tests/e2e/main.go @@ -192,6 +192,12 @@ var stepChoices = map[string]StepChoice{ description: "test partial set security for an Opt-In chain that has a validator denylisted", testConfig: DefaultTestCfg, }, + "partial-set-security-modification-proposal": { + name: "partial-set-security-modification-proposal", + steps: stepsModifyChain(), + description: "test partial set security parameters can be changed through a modification proposal", + testConfig: DefaultTestCfg, + }, } func getTestCaseUsageString() string { diff --git a/tests/e2e/state.go b/tests/e2e/state.go index 7b674b0df8..636121333f 100644 --- a/tests/e2e/state.go +++ b/tests/e2e/state.go @@ -76,6 +76,14 @@ type ConsumerRemovalProposal struct { func (p ConsumerRemovalProposal) isProposal() {} +type ConsumerModificationProposal struct { + Deposit uint + Chain ChainID + Status string +} + +func (p ConsumerModificationProposal) isProposal() {} + type Rewards struct { IsRewarded map[ValidatorID]bool // if true it will calculate if the validator/delegator is rewarded between 2 successive blocks, @@ -482,6 +490,22 @@ func (tr TestConfig) getProposal(chain ChainID, proposal uint) Proposal { Chain: chain, StopTime: int(stopTime.Milliseconds()), } + case "/interchain_security.ccv.provider.v1.ConsumerModificationProposal": + chainId := gjson.Get(string(bz), `messages.0.content.chain_id`).String() + + var chain ChainID + for i, conf := range tr.chainConfigs { + if string(conf.ChainId) == chainId { + chain = i + break + } + } + + return ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: uint(deposit), + Status: status, + Chain: chain, + } case "/cosmos.params.v1beta1.ParameterChangeProposal": return ParamsProposal{ Deposit: uint(deposit), diff --git a/tests/e2e/steps_partial_set_security.go b/tests/e2e/steps_partial_set_security.go index 5e86ede3a8..1002302620 100644 --- a/tests/e2e/steps_partial_set_security.go +++ b/tests/e2e/steps_partial_set_security.go @@ -1892,3 +1892,547 @@ func stepsValidatorsDenylistedChain() []Step { return s } + +// stepsModifyChain issues multiple `ConsumerModificationProposal`s on a consumer chain to assert that indeed +// partial-set security parameters can be changed. +func stepsModifyChain() []Step { + s := []Step{ + { + Action: StartChainAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + Validators: []StartChainValidator{ + {Id: ValidatorID("alice"), Stake: 100000000, Allocation: 10000000000}, + {Id: ValidatorID("bob"), Stake: 200000000, Allocation: 10000000000}, + {Id: ValidatorID("carol"), Stake: 300000000, Allocation: 10000000000}, + }, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 100, + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: SubmitConsumerAdditionProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: ValidatorID("alice"), + Deposit: 10000001, + ConsumerChain: ChainID("consu"), + SpawnTime: 0, + InitialHeight: clienttypes.Height{RevisionNumber: 0, RevisionHeight: 1}, + TopN: 0, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 1: ConsumerAdditionProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + SpawnTime: 0, + InitialHeight: clienttypes.Height{RevisionNumber: 0, RevisionHeight: 1}, + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_VOTING_PERIOD", + }, + }, + HasToValidate: &map[ValidatorID][]ChainID{ + ValidatorID("alice"): {}, + ValidatorID("bob"): {}, + ValidatorID("carol"): {}, + }, + }, + }, + }, + // Οpt in "alice", "bob", and "carol." Note, that "alice" and "bob" use the provider's public key + // (see `UseConsumerKey` is set to `false` in `getDefaultValidators`) and hence do not need a consumer-key assignment. + { + Action: OptInAction{ + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Validator: ValidatorID("alice"), + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + HasToValidate: &map[ValidatorID][]ChainID{ + ValidatorID("alice"): {}, // chain is not running yet + ValidatorID("bob"): {}, + ValidatorID("carol"): {}, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: OptInAction{ + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Validator: ValidatorID("bob"), + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + HasToValidate: &map[ValidatorID][]ChainID{ + ValidatorID("alice"): {}, + ValidatorID("bob"): {}, + ValidatorID("carol"): {}, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: OptInAction{ + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Validator: ValidatorID("carol"), + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + HasToValidate: &map[ValidatorID][]ChainID{ + ValidatorID("alice"): {}, + ValidatorID("bob"): {}, + ValidatorID("carol"): {}, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + // assign the consumer key "carol" is using on the consumer chain to be the one "carol" uses when opting in + Action: AssignConsumerPubKeyAction{ + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Validator: ValidatorID("carol"), + // reconfigure the node -> validator was using provider key + // until this point -> key matches config.consumerValPubKey for "carol" + ConsumerPubkey: getDefaultValidators()[ValidatorID("carol")].ConsumerValPubKey, + ReconfigureNode: true, + }, + State: State{}, + }, + { + Action: VoteGovProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: []ValidatorID{ValidatorID("alice"), ValidatorID("bob"), ValidatorID("carol")}, + Vote: []string{"yes", "yes", "yes"}, + PropNumber: 1, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 1: ConsumerAdditionProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + SpawnTime: 0, + InitialHeight: clienttypes.Height{RevisionNumber: 0, RevisionHeight: 1}, + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: StartConsumerChainAction{ + ConsumerChain: ChainID("consu"), + ProviderChain: ChainID("provi"), + Validators: []StartChainValidator{ + {Id: ValidatorID("alice"), Stake: 100000000, Allocation: 10000000000}, + {Id: ValidatorID("bob"), Stake: 200000000, Allocation: 10000000000}, + {Id: ValidatorID("carol"), Stake: 300000000, Allocation: 10000000000}, + }, + // For consumers that're launching with the provider being on an earlier version + // of ICS before the soft opt-out threshold was introduced, we need to set the + // soft opt-out threshold to 0.05 in the consumer genesis to ensure that the + // consumer binary doesn't panic. Sdk requires that all params are set to valid + // values from the genesis file. + GenesisChanges: ".app_state.ccvconsumer.params.soft_opt_out_threshold = \"0.05\"", + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("consu"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 100, + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: AddIbcConnectionAction{ + ChainA: ChainID("consu"), + ChainB: ChainID("provi"), + ClientA: 0, + ClientB: 0, + }, + State: State{}, + }, + { + Action: AddIbcChannelAction{ + ChainA: ChainID("consu"), + ChainB: ChainID("provi"), + ConnectionA: 0, + PortA: "consumer", + PortB: "provider", + Order: "ordered", + }, + State: State{}, + }, + { + Action: RelayPacketsAction{ + ChainA: ChainID("provi"), + ChainB: ChainID("consu"), + Port: "provider", + Channel: 0, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("consu"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 100, + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + HasToValidate: &map[ValidatorID][]ChainID{ + ValidatorID("alice"): {"consu"}, + ValidatorID("bob"): {"consu"}, + ValidatorID("carol"): {"consu"}, + }, + }, + }, + }, + + // In what follows, we have 5 cases of `ConsumerModificationProposal`s that test the following: + // 1. set `ValidatorsPowerCap` to 40% + // 2. set the `ValidatorSetCap` to a maximum of 2 validators + // 3. set an allowlist with 2 validators + // 4. set a denylist with 1 validator + // 5. modify the chain from Opt In to Top 100% + + // 1. set `ValidatorsPowerCap` to 40% + { + Action: SubmitConsumerModificationProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: ValidatorID("alice"), + Deposit: 10000001, + ConsumerChain: ChainID("consu"), + ValidatorsPowerCap: 40, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 2: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_VOTING_PERIOD", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: VoteGovProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: []ValidatorID{ValidatorID("alice"), ValidatorID("bob"), ValidatorID("carol")}, + Vote: []string{"yes", "yes", "yes"}, + PropNumber: 2, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 2: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: RelayPacketsAction{ + ChainA: ChainID("provi"), + ChainB: ChainID("consu"), + Port: "provider", + Channel: 0, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 100, + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + ChainID("consu"): ChainState{ + // `ValidatorsPowerCap` is set to 40% + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 130, // ~22% of the total voting power + ValidatorID("bob"): 230, // ~38% of the total voting power + ValidatorID("carol"): 240, // 40% of the total voting power + }, + }, + }, + }, + + // 2. set the `ValidatorSetCap` to a maximum of 2 validators + { + Action: SubmitConsumerModificationProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: ValidatorID("alice"), + Deposit: 10000001, + ConsumerChain: ChainID("consu"), + ValidatorSetCap: 2, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 3: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_VOTING_PERIOD", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: VoteGovProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: []ValidatorID{ValidatorID("alice"), ValidatorID("bob"), ValidatorID("carol")}, + Vote: []string{"yes", "yes", "yes"}, + PropNumber: 3, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 3: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: RelayPacketsAction{ + ChainA: ChainID("provi"), + ChainB: ChainID("consu"), + Port: "provider", + Channel: 0, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 100, + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + ChainID("consu"): ChainState{ + // we can have a maximum of 2 validators due to `ValidatorSetCap`, hence only the 2 validators ("bob" and "carol") + // with the highest voting power validate + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 0, + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + }, + }, + + // 3. set an allowlist with 2 validators + { + Action: SubmitConsumerModificationProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: ValidatorID("alice"), + Deposit: 10000001, + ConsumerChain: ChainID("consu"), + // only "alice" and "carol" are allowlisted (see `getDefaultValidators` in `tests/e2e/config.go`) + Allowlist: []string{"cosmosvalcons1qmq08eruchr5sf5s3rwz7djpr5a25f7xw4mceq", + "cosmosvalcons1ezyrq65s3gshhx5585w6mpusq3xsj3ayzf4uv6"}, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 4: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_VOTING_PERIOD", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: VoteGovProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: []ValidatorID{ValidatorID("alice"), ValidatorID("bob"), ValidatorID("carol")}, + Vote: []string{"yes", "yes", "yes"}, + PropNumber: 4, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 4: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: RelayPacketsAction{ + ChainA: ChainID("provi"), + ChainB: ChainID("consu"), + Port: "provider", + Channel: 0, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 100, + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + ChainID("consu"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 100, + ValidatorID("bob"): 0, // "bob" is not allowlisted + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + }, + }, + + // 4. set a denylist with 1 validator + { + Action: SubmitConsumerModificationProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: ValidatorID("alice"), + Deposit: 10000001, + ConsumerChain: ChainID("consu"), + // only "alice" is denylisted (see `getDefaultValidators` in `tests/e2e/config.go`) + Denylist: []string{"cosmosvalcons1qmq08eruchr5sf5s3rwz7djpr5a25f7xw4mceq"}, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 5: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_VOTING_PERIOD", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: VoteGovProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: []ValidatorID{ValidatorID("alice"), ValidatorID("bob"), ValidatorID("carol")}, + Vote: []string{"yes", "yes", "yes"}, + PropNumber: 5, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 5: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: RelayPacketsAction{ + ChainA: ChainID("provi"), + ChainB: ChainID("consu"), + Port: "provider", + Channel: 0, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 100, + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + ChainID("consu"): ChainState{ + ValPowers: &map[ValidatorID]uint{ + ValidatorID("alice"): 0, // "alice" is denylisted + ValidatorID("bob"): 200, + ValidatorID("carol"): 300, + }, + }, + }, + }, + + // 5. modify the chain from Opt In to Top 100% + { + Action: SubmitConsumerModificationProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: ValidatorID("alice"), + Deposit: 10000001, + ConsumerChain: ChainID("consu"), + TopN: 100, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 6: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_VOTING_PERIOD", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: VoteGovProposalAction{ + Chain: ChainID("provi"), + From: []ValidatorID{ValidatorID("alice"), ValidatorID("bob"), ValidatorID("carol")}, + Vote: []string{"yes", "yes", "yes"}, + PropNumber: 6, + }, + State: State{ + ChainID("provi"): ChainState{ + Proposals: &map[uint]Proposal{ + 6: ConsumerModificationProposal{ + Deposit: 10000001, + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Status: "PROPOSAL_STATUS_PASSED", + }, + }, + }, + }, + }, + { + Action: OptOutAction{ + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Validator: ValidatorID("alice"), + ExpectError: true, // because this chain is now Top 100%, no validator can opt out + }, + State: State{}, + }, + { + Action: OptOutAction{ + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Validator: ValidatorID("bob"), + ExpectError: true, // because this chain is now Top 100%, no validator can opt out + }, + State: State{}, + }, + { + Action: OptOutAction{ + Chain: ChainID("consu"), + Validator: ValidatorID("carol"), + ExpectError: true, // because this chain is now Top 100%, no validator can opt out + }, + State: State{}, + }} + + return s +} diff --git a/tests/e2e/test_driver.go b/tests/e2e/test_driver.go index a12dc7862e..245d70020b 100644 --- a/tests/e2e/test_driver.go +++ b/tests/e2e/test_driver.go @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ func (td *DefaultDriver) runAction(action interface{}) error { td.testCfg.submitConsumerAdditionProposal(action, td.target, td.verbose) case SubmitConsumerRemovalProposalAction: td.testCfg.submitConsumerRemovalProposal(action, td.target, td.verbose) + case SubmitConsumerModificationProposalAction: + td.testCfg.submitConsumerModificationProposal(action, td.target, td.verbose) case SubmitParamChangeLegacyProposalAction: td.testCfg.submitParamChangeProposal(action, td.target, td.verbose) case VoteGovProposalAction: diff --git a/tests/integration/distribution.go b/tests/integration/distribution.go index a71edf7f77..8229850a63 100644 --- a/tests/integration/distribution.go +++ b/tests/integration/distribution.go @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ func (s *CCVTestSuite) TestRewardsDistribution() { fees := sdk.NewCoins(sdk.NewCoin(sdk.DefaultBondDenom, sdk.NewInt(100))) err := consumerBankKeeper.SendCoinsFromAccountToModule(s.consumerCtx(), s.consumerChain.SenderAccount.GetAddress(), authtypes.FeeCollectorName, fees) s.Require().NoError(err) + feePoolTokens := consumerBankKeeper.GetAllBalances(s.consumerCtx(), consumerFeePoolAddr) s.Require().Equal(sdk.NewInt(100).Add(feePoolTokensOld.AmountOf(sdk.DefaultBondDenom)), feePoolTokens.AmountOf(sdk.DefaultBondDenom)) From 4a7b41731e9c4a8bd957da9bdf3dd88be904d4a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: insumity Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:43:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] added docs --- docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md | 5 ++++ docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md | 6 +++- docs/docs/features/proposals.md | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++- docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md | 6 ++++ x/ccv/provider/types/proposal.go | 2 +- 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md b/docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md index a2edbbb15d..8e01ed188e 100644 --- a/docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md +++ b/docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md @@ -26,3 +26,8 @@ For Top N chains, this is also the long term vision for how they are launched. For Opt In chains, this is a temporary measure to prevent issues around chain ID squatting, i.e. someone could spuriously register many desirable chain IDs of upcoming consumer chain and simply deny legitimate consumer chains from using them. Eventually, the plan is to allow launching Opt In chains permissionlessly without going through governance, with quality control being handled by the market of validators deciding which chains they would like to validate on. ::: + +:::tip +A running Top N consumer chain might want to become an Opt-In chain or vice versa. This can be achieved by issuing +a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](proposals#consumermodificationproposal). +::: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md b/docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md index 726ff031c6..df7e049cad 100644 --- a/docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md +++ b/docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md @@ -59,4 +59,8 @@ an allowlist that is too short can very quickly become outdated and leave too fe the power distribution on the provider shifts and the denylisted validators gain more power. In general, when setting these parameters, consider that the voting power distribution in the future might be very different from the one right now, -and that the chain should be secure even if the power distribution changes significantly. \ No newline at end of file +and that the chain should be secure even if the power distribution changes significantly. + +:::tip +The power shaping parameters of a running consumer chain can be changed through a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](proposals#consumermodificationproposal). +::: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/docs/features/proposals.md b/docs/docs/features/proposals.md index 1f188b8567..366821cdcb 100644 --- a/docs/docs/features/proposals.md +++ b/docs/docs/features/proposals.md @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ sidebar_position: 3 # ICS Provider Proposals -Interchain security module introduces 3 new proposal types to the provider. +Interchain security module introduces new proposal types to the provider. The proposals are used to propose upcoming interchain security events through governance. @@ -84,6 +84,38 @@ After the introduction of Partial Set Security, the use of the soft opt-out mech encouraged to use the topN parameter to not force validators with little stake to validate the chain. ::: + +## `ConsumerModificationProposal` +Proposal type used to change the power shaping parameters of a running consumer chain, as well as to change a Top N running +consumer chain to an Opt-In chain and vice versa. + +When a `ConsumerModificationProposal` passes for a running consumer chain, the consumer chain would change all its +parameters to the ones passed in the `ConsumerModificationProposal`. + +Assume, a `chain-1` is a Top N chain. If the following `ConsumerModificationProposal` passes, then `chain-1` would become +an Opt-In chain with a 40% validators power cap, a maximum number of 30 validators, and one denylisted validator. +```js +{ + "title": "Modify consumer chain", + "description": ".md description of your chain and all other relevant information", + "chain_id": "chain-1", + "top_N": 0, + "validators_power_cap": 40, + "validator_set_cap": 30, + "allowlist": [], + "denylist": ["cosmosvalcons1qmq08eruchr5sf5s3rwz7djpr5a25f7xw4mceq"] +} +``` + +:::warning +If `top_N`, `validators_power_cap`, etc. or some other argument is not included in the proposal, then it is considered +that the default value is set for this argument. For example, if a Top 50% chain wants to only modify `validators_power_cap` +from 35 to 40, then the `ConsumerModificationProposal` would still need to include that `top_N` is 50. Otherwise +`top_N` would be set to its default value of 0, and the chain would become an Opt-In chain. + +To be **safe**, always include `top_N` and all the power shaping parameters in your `ConsumerModificationProposal`. +::: + ## ChangeRewardDenomProposal Proposal type used to mutate the set of denoms accepted by the provider as rewards. diff --git a/docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md b/docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md index f648f8eac6..8b54bbc197 100644 --- a/docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md +++ b/docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md @@ -129,3 +129,9 @@ Yes, the consumer chain will halt with an ERR CONSENSUS FAILURE error after the ## Can validators set a commission rate for chains they have not opted in to? Yes, and this is useful for validators that are not in the top N% of the provider chain, but might move into the top N% in the future. By setting the commission rate ahead of time, they can make sure that they immediately have a commission rate of their choosing as soon as they are in the top N%. + +## Can a consumer chain modify its power shaping parameters? +Yes, by issuing a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](features/proposals#consumermodificationproposal). + +## Can a Top N consumer chain become Opt-In or vice versa? +Yes, by issuing a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](features/proposals#consumermodificationproposal). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/x/ccv/provider/types/proposal.go b/x/ccv/provider/types/proposal.go index 0e42f2a3ab..97b9bd158f 100644 --- a/x/ccv/provider/types/proposal.go +++ b/x/ccv/provider/types/proposal.go @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ func (sccp *ConsumerRemovalProposal) ValidateBasic() error { return nil } -// NewConsumerModificationProposal creates a new consumer modificaton proposal. +// NewConsumerModificationProposal creates a new consumer modification proposal. func NewConsumerModificationProposal(title, description, chainID string, topN uint32, validatorsPowerCap uint32, From 59589ba4807247831eaebc17ffe5c63a6e9db999 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: insumity Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:57:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/5] add to nightly tests --- .github/workflows/nightly-e2e.yml | 17 +++++++++++++++++ tests/e2e/actions.go | 20 ++++++++++---------- tests/e2e/main.go | 1 + 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/.github/workflows/nightly-e2e.yml b/.github/workflows/nightly-e2e.yml index 906b2a2806..7f200b7f97 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/nightly-e2e.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/nightly-e2e.yml @@ -277,6 +277,22 @@ jobs: go-version: "1.21" # The Go version to download (if necessary) and use. - name: E2E partial set security denylist run: go run ./tests/e2e/... --tc partial-set-security-validators-denylisted + partial-set-security-modification-proposal: + runs-on: ubuntu-latest + timeout-minutes: 20 + steps: + - uses: actions/setup-go@v5 + with: + go-version: "1.21" + - uses: actions/checkout@v4 + - name: Checkout LFS objects + run: git lfs checkout + - name: Setup Go + uses: actions/setup-go@v5 + with: + go-version: "1.21" # The Go version to download (if necessary) and use. + - name: E2E partial set security modification proposal + run: go run ./tests/e2e/... --tc partial-set-security-modification-proposal nightly-test-fail: needs: @@ -295,6 +311,7 @@ jobs: - partial-set-security-validators-power-cap-test - partial-set-security-validators-allowlisted-test - partial-set-security-validators-denylisted-test + - partial-set-security-modification-proposal if: ${{ failure() }} runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: diff --git a/tests/e2e/actions.go b/tests/e2e/actions.go index 9fdcd2a747..2e8b500eb7 100644 --- a/tests/e2e/actions.go +++ b/tests/e2e/actions.go @@ -439,21 +439,15 @@ func (tr TestConfig) submitConsumerModificationProposal( } //#nosec G204 -- bypass unsafe quoting warning (no production code) - cmd := target.ExecCommand( + bz, err = target.ExecCommand( "/bin/bash", "-c", fmt.Sprintf(`echo '%s' > %s`, jsonStr, "/temp-proposal.json"), - ) - bz, err = cmd.CombinedOutput() - - if verbose { - log.Println("submitConsumerModificationProposal cmd: ", cmd.String()) - } - + ).CombinedOutput() if err != nil { log.Fatal(err, "\n", string(bz)) } // CONSUMER MODIFICATION PROPOSAL - bz, err = target.ExecCommand( + cmd := target.ExecCommand( tr.chainConfigs[action.Chain].BinaryName, "tx", "gov", "submit-legacy-proposal", "consumer-modification", "/temp-proposal.json", `--from`, `validator`+fmt.Sprint(action.From), @@ -463,7 +457,13 @@ func (tr TestConfig) submitConsumerModificationProposal( `--node`, tr.getValidatorNode(action.Chain, action.From), `--keyring-backend`, `test`, `-y`, - ).CombinedOutput() + ) + if verbose { + log.Println("submitConsumerModificationProposal cmd: ", cmd.String()) + } + + bz, err = cmd.CombinedOutput() + if err != nil { log.Fatal(err, "\n", string(bz)) } diff --git a/tests/e2e/main.go b/tests/e2e/main.go index c7b2b789a7..6a7523ac05 100644 --- a/tests/e2e/main.go +++ b/tests/e2e/main.go @@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ func getTestCases(selectedPredefinedTests, selectedTestFiles TestSet, providerVe "consumer-double-downtime", "partial-set-security-opt-in", "partial-set-security-top-n", "partial-set-security-validator-set-cap", "partial-set-security-validators-power-cap", "partial-set-security-validators-allowlisted", "partial-set-security-validators-denylisted", + "partial-set-security-modification-proposal", } if includeMultiConsumer != nil && *includeMultiConsumer { selectedPredefinedTests = append(selectedPredefinedTests, "multiconsumer") From dc4b913d13a4774a2fd606d63d96dd2956fb3527 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: insumity Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 4/5] fix markdown links --- docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md | 2 +- docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md | 2 +- docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md | 4 ++-- docs/docs/validators/joining-testnet.md | 4 ++-- docs/docs/validators/overview.md | 8 ++++---- 5 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md b/docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md index 8e01ed188e..6405fe092b 100644 --- a/docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md +++ b/docs/docs/features/partial-set-security.md @@ -29,5 +29,5 @@ For Opt In chains, this is a temporary measure to prevent issues around chain ID :::tip A running Top N consumer chain might want to become an Opt-In chain or vice versa. This can be achieved by issuing -a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](proposals#consumermodificationproposal). +a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](./proposals.md#consumermodificationproposal). ::: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md b/docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md index df7e049cad..2f51aef8f0 100644 --- a/docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md +++ b/docs/docs/features/power-shaping.md @@ -62,5 +62,5 @@ In general, when setting these parameters, consider that the voting power distri and that the chain should be secure even if the power distribution changes significantly. :::tip -The power shaping parameters of a running consumer chain can be changed through a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](proposals#consumermodificationproposal). +The power shaping parameters of a running consumer chain can be changed through a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](./proposals.md#consumermodificationproposal). ::: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md b/docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md index 8b54bbc197..c78dc89f0f 100644 --- a/docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md +++ b/docs/docs/frequently-asked-questions.md @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ Yes, and this is useful for validators that are not in the top N% of the provide By setting the commission rate ahead of time, they can make sure that they immediately have a commission rate of their choosing as soon as they are in the top N%. ## Can a consumer chain modify its power shaping parameters? -Yes, by issuing a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](features/proposals#consumermodificationproposal). +Yes, by issuing a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](./features/proposals.md#consumermodificationproposal). ## Can a Top N consumer chain become Opt-In or vice versa? -Yes, by issuing a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](features/proposals#consumermodificationproposal). \ No newline at end of file +Yes, by issuing a [`ConsumerModificationProposal`](./features/proposals.md#consumermodificationproposal). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/docs/docs/validators/joining-testnet.md b/docs/docs/validators/joining-testnet.md index 86a3dc2693..d61be07e12 100644 --- a/docs/docs/validators/joining-testnet.md +++ b/docs/docs/validators/joining-testnet.md @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ The experience gained in the testnet will prepare you for validating interchain :::tip Provider and consumer chain represent distinct networks and infrastructures operated by the same validator set. -For general information about running cosmos-sdk based chains check out the [validator basics](https://hub.cosmos.network/validators/validator-setup) and [Running a Node section](https://docs.cosmos.network/main/run-node/run-node) of Cosmos SDK docs +For general information about running cosmos-sdk based chains check out the [validator basics](https://hub.cosmos.network/main/validators/validator-setup) and [Running a Node section](https://docs.cosmos.network/main/run-node/run-node) of Cosmos SDK docs ::: ## Joining the provider chain @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ gaiad tx staking create-validator \ ``` :::tip -Check this [guide](https://hub.cosmos.network/validators/validator-setup#edit-validator-description) to edit your validator. +Check this [guide](https://hub.cosmos.network/main/validators/validator-setup#edit-validator-description) to edit your validator. ::: After this step, your validator is created and you can start your node and catch up to the rest of the network. It is recommended that you use `statesync` to catch up to the rest of the network. diff --git a/docs/docs/validators/overview.md b/docs/docs/validators/overview.md index 97ef906d0a..ff22edb560 100644 --- a/docs/docs/validators/overview.md +++ b/docs/docs/validators/overview.md @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ At present, the consumer chain can report evidence about downtime infractions to :::info Causing a downtime infraction on any consumer chain will not incur a slash penalty. Instead, the offending validator will be jailed on the provider chain and consequently on all consumer chains. -To unjail, the validator must wait for the jailing period to elapse on the provider chain and [submit an unjail transaction](https://hub.cosmos.network/validators/validator-setup#unjail-validator) on the provider chain. After unjailing on the provider, the validator will be unjailed on all consumer chains. +To unjail, the validator must wait for the jailing period to elapse on the provider chain and [submit an unjail transaction](https://hub.cosmos.network/main/validators/validator-setup#unjail-validator) on the provider chain. After unjailing on the provider, the validator will be unjailed on all consumer chains. More information is available in [Downtime Slashing documentation](../features/slashing.md#downtime-infractions) ::: @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ Validators can use different consensus keys on the provider and each of the cons For more information check out the [Key assignment overview and guide](../features/key-assignment.md) ## References: -- [Cosmos Hub Validators FAQ](https://hub.cosmos.network/validators/validator-faq) -- [Cosmos Hub Running a validator](https://hub.cosmos.network/validators/validator-setup) +- [Cosmos Hub Validators FAQ](https://hub.cosmos.network/main/validators/validator-faq) +- [Cosmos Hub Running a validator](https://hub.cosmos.network/main/validators/validator-setup) - [Startup Sequence](https://github.com/cosmos/testnets/blob/master/interchain-security/CONSUMER_LAUNCH_GUIDE.md#chain-launch) -- [Submit Unjailing Transaction](https://hub.cosmos.network/validators/validator-setup#unjail-validator) +- [Submit Unjailing Transaction](https://hub.cosmos.network/main/validators/validator-setup#unjail-validator) From 0cacc4552fb75952abb69a7fde16c18f09a63759 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: insumity Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:34:24 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] Update docs/docs/features/proposals.md Co-authored-by: Philip Offtermatt <57488781+p-offtermatt@users.noreply.github.com> --- docs/docs/features/proposals.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/docs/features/proposals.md b/docs/docs/features/proposals.md index 366821cdcb..5f5457fc0a 100644 --- a/docs/docs/features/proposals.md +++ b/docs/docs/features/proposals.md @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ an Opt-In chain with a 40% validators power cap, a maximum number of 30 validato ``` :::warning -If `top_N`, `validators_power_cap`, etc. or some other argument is not included in the proposal, then it is considered +If `top_N`, `validators_power_cap`, or some other argument is not included in the proposal, then it is considered that the default value is set for this argument. For example, if a Top 50% chain wants to only modify `validators_power_cap` from 35 to 40, then the `ConsumerModificationProposal` would still need to include that `top_N` is 50. Otherwise `top_N` would be set to its default value of 0, and the chain would become an Opt-In chain.