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

Code Review. #256

Closed
8 of 14 tasks
clangenb opened this issue Jun 1, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed
8 of 14 tasks

Code Review. #256

clangenb opened this issue Jun 1, 2021 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@clangenb
Copy link
Contributor

clangenb commented Jun 1, 2021

These are some general things that stand out to me after not having seen the code for a year. Most things concern idiomatic code, but some of them would increase readability, and therefore productivity. Not everything necessarily needs to be implemented, but could be if we touch that part of the code anyhow.

Major

Minor

  • Add ApiClient extension traits: Replace api-client wrappers with extension traits. #255
  • Client: Move some api-client wrappers to substratee-node-primitives
  • combine worker-/node-primitives in a primitives directory, i.e. primitives/node and primitives/worker
  • make enclave/rpc.rs a separate crate in core
  • make enclave/top_pool.rs a separate crate in core
  • move enclave crypto stuff to separate crate. Started, progress here: extract crypto stuff out of enclave #361
  • worker/main.rs way too big, separate it into multiple files.
  • client/main.rs is also way too big.
  • Remove trait UnwrapOrSgxErrorUnexpected #413
  • I don't think the WorkerApi should be nested within the worker. It rather belongs to the client or primitives.
  • Cleanup the Eclave_t-/u.* files by moving them in a separate directory. (Possibly lib.)
  • The Stf does not make much sense to me anymore. All the methods operate on StfState anyhow. We could make Stf a trait instead of a struct and implement it for StfState. STF Design Enhancement Proposal #269
@brenzi
Copy link
Collaborator

brenzi commented Sep 7, 2021

@clangenb can you please go through your points and see if we can close this now?

@clangenb
Copy link
Contributor Author

clangenb commented Sep 7, 2021

Some points are still valid and should be tackled imo.

@clangenb
Copy link
Contributor Author

Either crossed out tasks as not so relevant or made separate issues for the remaining tasks. So closing this one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants