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

Rebrand to Checker Node. Closes #676 #677

Merged
merged 36 commits into from
Feb 19, 2025
Merged

Conversation

juliangruber
Copy link
Member

@juliangruber juliangruber commented Feb 7, 2025

For #676
Blocks CheckerNetwork/desktop#2049

Renames:

Before After
Filecoin Station Core Checker Network Node
Station Core Checker Node
Station Checker
CheckerNetwork/core CheckerNetwork/node
Binary Module Runtime
Module Subnet
Station Id Checker Id

Before, we were using "module" both for binaries like Zinnia and sources like "spark". Since part of the rebrand is to rename module to subnet, I split up this term into runtime and subnet, to avoid any confusion.

After merge

@juliangruber juliangruber changed the title Rebrand to checker. Closes #676 Rebrand to Checker Node. Closes #676 Feb 7, 2025
@juliangruber juliangruber marked this pull request as ready for review February 7, 2025 17:32
@juliangruber juliangruber requested a review from bajtos February 7, 2025 17:33
@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Feb 10, 2025

Before, we were using "module" both for binaries like Zinnia and sources like "spark". Since part of the rebrand is to rename module to subnet, I split up this term into runtime and subnet, to avoid any confusion.

IIRC, we used to have the concept of two kinds of modules - a "trusted module" where we run a precompiled binary provided by the subnet (e.g. Saturn L2 node) and "trustless module" where we run JavaScript/WASM in Zinnia runtime.

I agree with using the term "runtime" for the Zinnia runtime binary (zinniad).

Are trusted subnets something to support in the new naming?

@bajtos bajtos self-requested a review February 10, 2025 16:20
@juliangruber
Copy link
Member Author

Before, we were using "module" both for binaries like Zinnia and sources like "spark". Since part of the rebrand is to rename module to subnet, I split up this term into runtime and subnet, to avoid any confusion.

IIRC, we used to have the concept of two kinds of modules - a "trusted module" where we run a precompiled binary provided by the subnet (e.g. Saturn L2 node) and "trustless module" where we run JavaScript/WASM in Zinnia runtime.

I agree with using the term "runtime" for the Zinnia runtime binary (zinniad).

Are trusted subnets something to support in the new naming?

Good point, I've made the decision in this PR that there will only be subnet source files and runtimes. This architecture would be nice as only open source modules can be run. I'm not sure if this decision is correct, but at the same time it makes things easier. Before, we were calling Zinnia a module of Station, and Spark a module of Zinnia (but defined in Station, not Zinnia). This encapsulation was confusing as I was looking over the code.

Since the changes here are relatively simple, and we don't plan to add native / trusted subnets, I suggest we go ahead.

@juliangruber
Copy link
Member Author

We have agreed to also add migration logic to this repository

@bajtos

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

@bajtos bajtos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes look reasonable to me. I have a few comments to discuss, PTAL 👇🏻

@juliangruber juliangruber requested a review from bajtos February 18, 2025 09:29
Copy link
Member

@bajtos bajtos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM with one comment about README which I think you already resolved.

Great job! 👏🏻

@juliangruber
Copy link
Member Author

Understood! But: There's no else condition here, and the if body is small. In other cases I would agree with your reasoning and implement it the same way. I can't put into words atm why I find it worse in cases like this. I think mainly that if condition itself is easy to read this way, the proposed one makes me think more

@juliangruber juliangruber merged commit cce2a41 into main Feb 19, 2025
18 checks passed
@juliangruber juliangruber deleted the update/checker-rebrand branch February 19, 2025 09:41
@juliangruber
Copy link
Member Author

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants