[report] Initial commit of /report and /validate endpoints

[joshlf]

This change is 

[cramertj]

Are these constants inherent to the protocol? Perhaps they should live in a config that can be changed without recompiling?

[joshlf]

I definitely want to do that eventually, but for prototyping's sake, it's not a priority. If you want to tackle that, though, feel free! #32

[madhavajay]

Looks good. Are you squashing and force pushing? I guess that would be more clear if I saw this PR earlier.

[joshlf]

Yeah, I've been spoiled by Gerrit, so I'm trying to figure out how to adapt my workflows to GH.

[joshlf]

Reviewable status: 0 of 7 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @madhavajay)

---

API.md, line 55 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, madhavajay (Madhava Jay) wrote…

This data payload returns:

 responding with error code 500 and message "internal server error" (error: illegal base64 data at input byte 36)

Changing to this works:

"data" : "9USO+Z30bvZWIKPwZmee0TvkGXBQi7+DqAjtdYZ="

Done.

---

API.md, line 94 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, madhavajay (Madhava Jay) wrote…

See above:

"data" : "9USO+Z30bvZWIKPwZmee0TvkGXBQi7+DqAjtdYZ="

Done.

---

functions/internal/report/report.go, line 85 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, madhavajay (Madhava Jay) wrote…

spelling: remvoed -> removed

Done.

---

functions/internal/report/report_test.go, line 43 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, madhavajay (Madhava Jay) wrote…

number?

Done.

[madhavajay]

Reviewed 11 of 11 files at r2.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @joshlf)

---

functions/report.go, line 77 at r2 (raw file):

	if req.Challenge != nil {
		var emptyChallgeSolution pow.ChallengeSolution
		if !allowEmptyChallengeSolution || *req.Challenge != emptyChallgeSolution {

Maybe here we can have an extra if allowEmptyChallengeSolution log: "Warning challenge bypassed do not do this in production"?

---

functions/internal/report/report.go, line 107 at r2 (raw file):

func StorePendingReport(ctx *util.Context, reportData []byte) (UploadToken, UploadKey, util.StatusError) {
	validityExp := ctx.Now().Add(validityPeriod)
	allocationExp := validityExp.Add(allocationPeriod)

Any benefit to adding a random amount of time to this during run time so they cant be accurately predicted eg:
allocationExp := validityExp.Add(allocationPeriod + rand)

[joshlf]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @joshlf and @madhavajay)

---

functions/internal/report/report.go, line 107 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, madhavajay (Madhava Jay) wrote…

Any benefit to adding a random amount of time to this during run time so they cant be accurately predicted eg:
allocationExp := validityExp.Add(allocationPeriod + rand)

I'm not aware of any security risk to the allocation period being known. Do you have one in mind?

[joshlf]

Reviewable status: 9 of 11 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @madhavajay)

---

functions/report.go, line 77 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, madhavajay (Madhava Jay) wrote…

Maybe here we can have an extra if allowEmptyChallengeSolution log: "Warning challenge bypassed do not do this in production"?

Done.

[madhavajay]

This is really solid!

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r3.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @madhavajay)