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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
ManagedAllowList
#255ManagedAllowList
#255Changes from 17 commits
5526814
8693901
0205594
f9ba98d
8130996
6eca6cc
720e83c
9e42114
ee85f5e
ab6db0a
e3d996f
d82db48
c5d981f
070ca81
d684c6c
8cef8bb
e387159
08fe8a4
dbe1ea2
98dc648
138d716
7da09ad
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Is incrementing only applicable if
value
isTrue
? Ifvalue
isFalse
should this be decrementing instead?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.
For this version, the goal was to charge per action, regardless if it's authorizing or deauthorizing. But more recent variations proposed to some adopters will use something different (e.g. charging for authorized slots). I think we can leave it as is because it's only a starting point anyway, and the more recent design of subscription contracts will refactor everything
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 see, so every action (authorize or deauthorize) is a charge.
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'm confused about the relationship between
value
and charging for authorizations/deauthorizations.Doesn't
* @param value The authorization status
imply that this is just a boolean check as to whether the ritualID is active? (Separately, what is theevidence
that confirms this?)As @cygnusv mentions, we're not charging for authorizations/deauthorizations, these are unlimited and can be executed at will – and the cohortAdmin/sponsor pays the gas, possibly passing that cost to an authAdmin (btw, do we have an estimate for how much this will be per action? how much is saved by batching?)
I guess #253 will cover the rules of adding/removing encryptor credits (or 'slots') and we can leave the option of charging for authorizations/deauthorizations in some later version.
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.
can we extract check of
value
before loop?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.
Yes. But I'm not sure about the business logic here. Should deauthorizations count towards billable
authActions
? I'm going to assume yes for the time being and remove therequire
onvalue
. CC: @cygnusv