feat: multi sync example#1622
Conversation
![github-code-quality[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/9919?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Viktor-Kalashnykov-da
changed the title
Viktor-Kalashnykov-da
changed the title
* fix: eliminate copying of dars from global to app synchronizer Signed-off-by: Marcin Ziolek <marcin.ziolek@digitalasset.com> * fix: elmininate the need for custom bootstrap script completely Signed-off-by: Marcin Ziolek <marcin.ziolek@digitalasset.com> --------- Signed-off-by: Marcin Ziolek <marcin.ziolek@digitalasset.com> Signed-off-by: mziolekda <marcin.ziolek@digitalasset.com>
…s TestToken before app-synchronizer self-transfer in run-15 Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
…sync flag from run-15 usage Multi-sync is now the default for start:localnet; --no-multi-sync starts single-synchronizer debug mode. Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
…out test token Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
| } | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| const signature = signTransactionHash( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason why we've split up the prepare/sign/execute functions is to enable offline signing. Could we move the synchronizerIds as part of the CreatePartyOptions so that on the sdk.party.external.create call this generates all of the topology transactions to be signed and then the SignedpartyCreationService takes in an array of ExecuteOptions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or disregard this if offline signing is supposed to be enabled in a separate phase or not supported at all as per this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see the problem - but I think offline signing with multiple synchronizers is a bigger change -> separate PR/ design.
| * `KNOWN_PACKAGE_VERSION`. Since the already-vetted package is resolved by | ||
| * package-name at command-submission time, it is safe to reuse it and continue. | ||
| */ | ||
| async function vetPackageIdempotent( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be added to the dar namespace in the sdk?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
logic moved to existing funtion
| * @param darBytes - Raw DAR file bytes. | ||
| * @param synchronizerId - The synchronizer on which the package should be vetted. | ||
| */ | ||
| export async function vetDar( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason why this isn't part of the dar namespace where it can be called with sdk.ledger.dar.vet and then we don't have to pass the provider in as an arg (it will just reuse the provider initialized in the sdk) ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
moved
also discovered that There is DarService which is duplicate of DarNamespace (comment added)
| const events = unassignResponse.reassignment?.events ?? [] | ||
| const unassignedEvent = events.find((e) => 'JsUnassignedEvent' in e) | ||
| if (!unassignedEvent || !('JsUnassignedEvent' in unassignedEvent)) { | ||
| throw new Error( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nitpick: can we use this.ctx.error.throw here instead
There was a problem hiding this comment.
done (+ in few other places)
| * @param synchronizerIds - Synchronizers to submit to in parallel | ||
| * @param privateKey - Key used to sign each prepared transaction | ||
| */ | ||
| public async executeOnSynchronizers( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like this convenience method, but I do want the name of this to indicate that it's preparing (for all synchronizers), signing and executing. Do you think there could be any value in also having a bulk prepare method (prepareForAllSynchronizers) for the case of offline signing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
method was renamed
as for prepareForAllSynchronizers I would add this in other PR
or just change this one to use few such methods
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
jarekr-da
force-pushed
the
wiktor/multisync-example
branch
from
3435416 to
2b41e6b
Compare
Signed-off-by: jarekr-da <jaroslaw.ratajski@digitalasset.com>
jarekr-da
force-pushed
the
wiktor/multisync-example
branch
from
93653ae to
1bee65e
Compare
7 participants
Multi-Synchronizer DvP Example - On ledger API - Part 1
Showcases automatic reassignment of Token from private synchronizer to global one, used on a realistic trade scenario with use of a custom Token.
New test:
https://github.com/canton-network/wallet/pull/1622/changes#diff-37db720ea457076fe6d04f6938d19c44e5dde3d7e1a5815953ff6b83199a1052
Design principles:
!!! We remove handling of synchronizers inside wallet-sdk.
Client code should be responsible of selecting
synchronizerIdin multi-sync scenarios.If not provided - synchronizer choice is left for canton participant logic.
Existing tests are updated (refactor(wallet-sdk): remove default synchronizer auto-selection #1740).
We try to show "realistic scenario" - we use multiple parties (Alice, Bob, TokenAdmin, TradingApp) we also
distribute dars to selected synchronizers (private dars to private). This contributes to relative complexity of the test code
source:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1q6LpHi-wC_MO_mzf7wp5D-15j4lNeKjCMW5xmBggaTY
Example works with Token Standard V1
We have experimented with token standard V2 -> but as V2 is not yet merged to splice use of V2 means even more code
All tests run on multi-sync
This is a first PR in a series
Showcases only on-ledger part - and ensures code works.
There are 2 follow up PRs (wip)
off ledger api for tokens standard Implementation feat: multi sync example test token token standard api implementation #1782(code extracted and merged here)
Technical limitations:
In this PR we introduce separate tests for multi-sync (otherwise regular tests are flaky on multi-sync) - that split will be removed in a separate PR (above)
New example script:
docs/wallet-integration-guide/examples/scripts/15-multi-sync-trade.ts
Notes
we experimented with automatic reassignment of contracts - and it basically worked BUT.
It worked as long as
Bobis owner ofTokenRulescontract which seems unrealistic.We introduced TokenAdmin as additional party that is issuer of
Tokenonapp-synchronizer(private one).But this in fact forces us to use explicit reassignment.
But since the settlement actually happens on global - TestToken related models must be also on global synchronizer