2020-06-25 Meeting notes

Date

Attendees

Discussion items

WhoNotes
  • We still need to have single approver for the "Iroha2*" branches
    • 武宮誠 > We need to be very careful because Iroha is a very significant product.
    • Nikita Puzankov > We are just want to stick to the previous process.
    • We can consider increasing to two reviewers later, when the team will be bigger and closer to the first production release.
    • No objections here from the other team members.
    • Andrei Lebedev > If we will have ~6 people in the team, it will be a good moment to switch to w reviewers
  • Since the last meeting made an RFC for MST transactions, we discussed it with Iurii and Vladislav
  • Checked requests for PRs
  • There is a request regarding the query security vulnerabilities from Iurii, I will continue with it
  • Now I am working on the maintenance subscription mechanism, will proceed with PR later today
  • There are some questions from Vladislav about the ISI
  • There is also some new dependency proposed, we need to discuss it in RFC
  • There are no updates on the document from Eugene, hence we will proceed with Mikhail
  • We are in contact with the data model project intern, there was a plan proposed, so we will include it also in the proposal
  • I will look for the RFC with MST description.
  • There is not so much RFC about the Maintenance endpoint
  • Currently finishing the HSM integration in 1.2.0
  • Also, working on the solution of the linking problem
  • I have reviewed the security vulnerability RFC, and look like that we need to have a brainstorm the solution as it looks like serious now
  • Probably, we have to improve somehow to improve our permission problem
    • 武宮誠 > There is not a big problem as Iroha still permissioned network. In Private solutions the environment should be protected, in Public – it is not a big deal.
  • I want to discuss the one issue with MD usage in RTD. There is no option for TOC structures.
    • Can we have a single index page using RST format to put the TOC? 
    • I am also trying to find the solution
    • Nikita Puzankov > Yes, sure, having such workaround is okay.
  • I have an idea of composability for the Iroha 2 based applications. This idea should be a basis for further improvements.
  • There are some issues in other projects, caused by bad implementation of ERC20 tokens. We can avoid such problems with Iroha 2.
  • Another key thing – is to have the possibility to create events and put corresponding logic. 
  • We should consider it while designing the event model
  • Finalized the Docker compose tests for the pipeline, along with correcting the configuration
  • There are some required scenarios for synchronization improvement
    • Will start with AddPeer instruction
  • Block sync is not a part of Sumeragi
  • Regarding Sumeragi there are some minor TODOs left, hence I will finish the block sync first.

Decisions

Number of reviewers for PRs

According to the discussion, the team made to decision to keep single reviewer for approving PRs in "iroha2*" branches.