-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
fix: identity registration events to use keyper-set-index #691
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
Merged
blockchainluffy
merged 3 commits into
main
from
feat/registration-events-use-keyperset-index
Apr 17, 2026
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
signature is
In other words: here we implicitly cast between
keyperConfigIndexandeon.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.
This is honestly puzzling to me, because
eonis a value contained inFiredTriggerof service db and should not be a "keyperConfigIndex" kind? Or should not need resolution into acorekeyperdatabase.Eon?Could it be that the triple return is actually superfluous, because the call does not "resolve" the
eon, but only verifies "decryptability", given the current keyper and active keyper set?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
aha, we "resolve" eon properties such as
ActivationBlockNumberthat we need later on. So I guess we're resolving a type.IOW: if we want to avoid the odd cast, we might want to consider changing the argument name to
eonNumber, because the value we're handling is not strictly akeyperSetIndexkeyperConfigIndexbut rather the numeric for a specificeon, right?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.
I don’t think renaming the parameter to
eonNumberwould be correct here. This PR is changing the semantics of the even eon field. The incoming value is no longer being treated as a real core eon number; it is being treated as the submitted keyper-set/config index from the registry event, andresolveDecryptableEon()then resolves the latest eon record for that set. So the oddity is not the function signature, it’s that the service DB field is still named Eon even though this PR changes its semantics. If we want to reduce confusion, the cleaner follow-up is to rename the internal shutter-service representation at the ingestion boundary (e.g. keyperConfigIndex / submittedKeyperConfigIndex) and keep “eon” only for the resolvedcorekeyperdatabase.Eon. We should do the same on the API side as well: if the API is submitting a keyper-set/config index, we should name it that way there too, rather than continuing to call it eon and relying on implicit reinterpretation downstream.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.
I agree for renaming the eon field to keyper set index in such places, but this is not the scope of PR as the eon field in database for many tables like
decryption_keyanddecryption_key_sharesetc still correspond to keypersetindex. I believe, renaming should be part of a larger PR which handles all these mismatchesThere 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.
Could you please open a follow-up issue for this refactor @blockchainluffy and resolve this comment? Thank you.