2019-05-06 Meeting notes: Mercury criteria review

Date

May 6, 2019

Participants

  • @Kelly Foster

  • @Pawel Szulc

  • @Artur Gajowy

  • @Łukasz Gołębiewski

  • @Adam Szkoda

  • @Kayvan Kazeminejad

  • @Timm Schäuble

  • @Former user (Deleted)

  • @Ovidiu Deac

  • @Dominik Zajkowski

  • @Sebastian Bach

  • @Tomáš Virtus

  • @Chris Boscolo

Goals

We have reviewed and are prepared to update features.md as needed.

Discussion topics

Item

Notes

Item

Notes

Resources

Nodes section

  • Complete

  • TODO validate location of the documentation.

  • Nice to have

    • Improved documentation

P2P network section

  • Complete

Network launch section

  • Complete

  • Concern - We don’t have full coverage for ways genesis ceremony could fail. Need more information provided to users why it failed.

  • TICKET - Update not a successful tests to lower duration it can run.

Contract deployment section

REV section

 

Wallets section

  • Do we have the updates reflected from Ed?

  • Which of the line items are now covered by tests?

Validation section

  • Complete

  • Discussion about “As a RChain validator, I want my validator identity to be different from the identity of my node and from the identity of my wallet.”

    • Agreement the sentiment is a concern of sharing private key in a scenario where there is a validator working with a devops person and who doesn’t want to share a private key.

    • TODO remove. Because we capture this information in documentation for how the platform works.

Bonding/unbonding section & validator slashing and ejection section

  • Need to specify tests

Consensus section

  • Complete

  • Nice to have

    • Wordsmithing for clarity

Cost accounting

 

Name registry

 

Performance

  • How do we share output of the perf test harness

Documentation

  • There is a lot of work to do

Action items

@Kelly Foster Investigate why links to node documentation don’t work.
@Kelly Foster ticket addition of update of features status page to CI process
@Kelly Foster ticket expand coverage of genesis ceremony testing
@Kelly Foster ticket remove “As a dApp developer, I want support for including binary files as part of deployments.” Related to this is RCHAIN-1555 should be won’t do. RCHAIN-3343: Remove As a dApp developer, I want support for including binary files as part of deployments from features.mdTo Do
@Kelly Foster ticket remove “As a dApp developer, I want contract definition inside another contract (ex WIDE, persisting contracts). RCHAIN-3344: Remove As a dApp developer, I want contract definition inside another contract (ex WIDE, persisting contracts) from features.mdTo Do
@Kelly Foster ticket remove”As a dApp developer, I want STDOUT to go back to gRPC response and not the log.” RCHAIN-3345: Remove As a dApp developer, I want STDOUT to go back to gRPC response and not the log. from features.mdTo Do

Decisions