pm: Add README #1099
pm: Add README #1099
Conversation
|
The first part looks pretty good to me. The RNG part feels a little ad hoc / incomplete without some more context around PM. Even though there is a link to the full PM spec, it might not be immediately clear to a new reader where the RNG part fits in and the reasoning for certain behaviors. Eg, from a quick glance, the writeup mentions that winning Not really sure yet how/where to improve this without a closer read of the PM spec. |
|
|
||
| The `abi.encodePacked()` Solidity built-in is used to match the behavior of the contract implementing the `TicketBroker` interface. `senderSig` is a signature produced by `Sender` over the hash of the ticket and `recipientRand` is the pre-image of the `recipientRandHash` that is included in the ticket. | ||
|
|
||
| Before a `Sender` can start creating and sending tickets, it must first fetch ticket parameters from a `Recipient`. When generating ticket parameters, a `Recipient` will generate a random number `recipientRand`, compute the hash of `recipientRand` as `recipientRandHash` and include the hash with the ticket parameters. Once a `Sender` has a set of ticket parameters with a `recipientRandHash`, the `Sender` will use a monontonically increasing `senderNonce` with each new ticket that it creates. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be a good idea to provide some extra context around TicketParams here , perhaps we can use the commented protobuf definitions to provide more clarity here?
|
|
||
| The `pm` package contains a client implementation of the [Livepeer PM protocol](https://github.com/livepeer/wiki/blob/master/spec/streamflow/pm.md). The main areas of interest are: | ||
|
|
||
| - A `Ticket` type which defines the ticket format that both senders and recipients accept. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be a good idea to provide some extra context around this type as its fieldnames are used extensively in the RNG part of the README. WDYT?
|
@yondonfu Is this documentation still worth getting merged or can we close the PR? |
|
Reviving this PR! Updated the |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1099 +/- ##
===================================================
+ Coverage 56.63383% 56.64955% +0.01572%
===================================================
Files 88 88
Lines 19084 19084
===================================================
+ Hits 10808 10811 +3
+ Misses 7682 7679 -3
Partials 594 594 see 1 file with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
|
Made a few small changes:
The above changes align with the convention used for assets in docs seen in |
What does this pull request do? Explain your changes. (required)
This PR adds:
pmpackage that references the full PM protocol specification and also highlights a few things that the package implements to ensure fair winning ticket selection.doc/payments.mdthat includes links to resources for the PM protocol as well as notes on fee estimationSpecific updates (required)
See above.
How did you test each of these updates (required)
N/A
Checklist:
./test.shpass