Add a first version of new upgrade docs #4750
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
cocreature
force-pushed
the
upgrade-docs
branch
from
cec8374 to
c2103c8
Compare
This PR adds a first version of update documentation and removes the existing docs which were talking about `damlc migrate`. So far the docs focus on the high-level approach to upgrades taken in DAML and give an example of how to structure upgrade contracts. What is not covered so far (and I’d like to leave that for a separate PR) is: 1. Technical details: How are things split up into packages, which restrictions apply to data-dependencies, … 2. Deployment and Running the upgrade via triggers/daml script/… 3. Common patterns for handling this in UIs (e.g. “locking” old contracts) changelog_begin changelog_end
hurryabit
reviewed
Mar 4, 2020
| signatories of a contract have agreed to one specific version of a | ||
| template. Changing the definition of a template, e.g., by extending it | ||
| with a new choice without agreement from signatories of contracts of | ||
| that template would completely break the authority guarantees provided |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not 100% sure but that feels better to me:
Suggested change
| that template would completely break the authority guarantees provided | |
| that template would completely break the authorization guarantees provided |
| those here.) We use a different name for the new template here. This | ||
| is not required as templates are identified by the triple | ||
| ``(PackageId, ModuleName, TemplateName)`` but here we omit package ids | ||
| and module names for presentational purposes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| and module names for presentational purposes. | |
| and module names for the sake of simplicity. |
| :start-after: -- COIN_AMOUNT_BEGIN | ||
| :end-before: -- COIN_AMOUNT_END | ||
|
|
||
| Now, that we defined our new template, we need to provide a way for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Now, that we defined our new template, we need to provide a way for | |
| Next, we need to provide a way for |
| :end-before: -- COIN_AMOUNT_END | ||
|
|
||
| Now, that we defined our new template, we need to provide a way for | ||
| the signatories issuer and owner to agree to a contract being |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| the signatories issuer and owner to agree to a contract being | |
| the signatories, issuer and owner, to agree to a contract being |
| Now, that we defined our new template, we need to provide a way for | ||
| the signatories issuer and owner to agree to a contract being | ||
| upgraded. It would be possible to structure this such that issuer and | ||
| owner have to agree to an upgrade for each *Coin* contract |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| owner have to agree to an upgrade for each *Coin* contract | |
| owner have to agree to an upgrade for each individual *Coin* contract |
| the signatories issuer and owner to agree to a contract being | ||
| upgraded. It would be possible to structure this such that issuer and | ||
| owner have to agree to an upgrade for each *Coin* contract | ||
| separately. However, since the template definition for those is all |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| separately. However, since the template definition for those is all | |
| separately. However, since the template definition for all of them is |
| :end-before: -- UPGRADE_PROPOSAL_END | ||
|
|
||
| Now we can define the *UpgradeCoinAgreement* template. This template | ||
| has one *nonconsuming* choice that accepts a *Coin* contract, archives |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The word "accept" is a bit overloaded here. We also need to make it clear that we pass the contract by reference not by value.
Suggested change
| has one *nonconsuming* choice that accepts a *Coin* contract, archives | |
| has one *nonconsuming* choice that takes the contract ID of a *Coin* contract, archives |
| Now we can define the *UpgradeCoinAgreement* template. This template | ||
| has one *nonconsuming* choice that accepts a *Coin* contract, archives | ||
| this *Coin* contract and creates a *CoinWithAmount* contract with | ||
| *amount* set to 1. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| *amount* set to 1. | |
| the same issuer and owner and the *amount* set to 1. |
cocreature
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2020
This PR addresses the comments from @hurryabit on #4750. changelog_begin changelog_end
6 tasks
cocreature
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2020
This PR addresses the comments from @hurryabit on #4750. changelog_begin changelog_end
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This PR adds a first version of update documentation and removes the
existing docs which were talking about
damlc migrate.So far the docs focus on the high-level approach to upgrades taken in
DAML and give an example of how to structure upgrade contracts.
What is not covered so far (and I’d like to leave that for a separate
PR) is:
restrictions apply to data-dependencies, …
changelog_begin
changelog_end
Pull Request Checklist
CHANGELOG_BEGINandCHANGELOG_ENDtagsNOTE: CI is not automatically run on non-members pull-requests for security
reasons. The reviewer will have to comment with
/AzurePipelines runtotrigger the build.