Skip to content
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

feat: Validate Msg proto annotations #13793

Merged
merged 65 commits into from
Mar 20, 2023
Merged

Conversation

amaury1093
Copy link
Contributor

@amaury1093 amaury1093 commented Nov 8, 2022

Description

This PR aims to do 2 things:

  • verify that all Msg services have the cosmos.msg.service=true annotation.
  • verify that all Msg* messages have the cosmos.msg.signer=... annotation.

If it's not the case, then it prints a warning to StdErr at startup.

It also fixes a couple of wrong proto annotations it caught 💪

Closes: #13405


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

types/reflection/reflection.go Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed
types/tx/amino/validate.go Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed
types/reflection/reflection.go Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed
types/tx/amino/validate.go Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed
types/reflection/serverreflection.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
runtime/services/reflection.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
types/reflection/reflection.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
types/reflection/reflection.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
types/tx/amino/validate.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@amaury1093 amaury1093 marked this pull request as ready for review March 13, 2023 13:36
@github-prbot github-prbot requested a review from a team March 13, 2023 13:36
@amaury1093
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is R4R again

Copy link
Member

@tac0turtle tac0turtle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK, nice to see it cleaned up some items

Comment on lines +63 to +66
fs, ok := c.protoFiles.(*protoregistry.Files)
if !ok {
return fmt.Errorf("expected *protoregistry.Files in GetSignersContext, got %T", c.protoFiles)
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had to add this change after #15413.

@aaronc @kocubinski In practice, would we ever want protodesc.Resolver not to be *protoregistry.Files?

Copy link
Member

@kocubinski kocubinski Mar 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe for testing failure modes in unit tests?

Edit: If we find a need, we could create an interface in signing like

RangeFiles(f func(protoreflect.FileDescriptor) bool)

and cast to that instead of protoregistry.Files. But since we don't have that need yet, and that would be a non-breaking change, I vote this is fine for now.

@amaury1093 amaury1093 merged commit 897ef64 into main Mar 20, 2023
@amaury1093 amaury1093 deleted the am/13405-valid-annotations branch March 20, 2023 15:27
larry0x pushed a commit to larry0x/cosmos-sdk that referenced this pull request May 22, 2023
Co-authored-by: Marko <marbar3778@yahoo.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Require cosmos.msg.v1 annotations
4 participants