Chainmail: implement save/unsave message #855 #856
Conversation
…table definition out of the service mod
…ST handler rework for msg retrieval by id
cool-ant
changed the base branch from
mm/chainmail-implement-archive
to
main
doc/psidk/src/development/services/rust-service/reference/chicken-scratch.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…nted; doing check-in before restructuring query call function for better partitioning and maintenance
…iting before extending deser to datetime field
|
@cool-ant There is an unhandled TODO in |
| subject: msg.subject.clone(), | ||
| body: msg.body.clone(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is clone needed here? msg goes out of scope right after this, so you should be able to move from it.
| /// | ||
| /// Unsaving a message removing it from state, exposing it to pruning | ||
| fn unsave(msg_id: u64) -> Result<(), Error> { | ||
| let msg = get_msg_by_id(msg_id).unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why call unwrap instead of ??
| serde_structs::TempMessageForDeserialization, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn get_msg_by_id(msg_id: u64) -> Result<TempMessageForDeserialization, Error> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the struct is called TempMessageForDeserialization, I would use it only for deserialization and immediately convert it to Message for use everywhere else.
| if msg.len() == 1 { | ||
| let msg = msg.get(0).unwrap(); | ||
| return Ok(msg.clone()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unnecessary clone. pop or remove can extract an item from a Vec without copying it.
| if archived_requested { | ||
| endpoint += "archived=true&"; | ||
| } | ||
| if sender.is_some() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if let Some(sender) = &senderis better if you need to both test and unwrap.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| let mut r_clause = String::new(); | ||
| let r_opt = params.get(&String::from("receiver")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need to create a new String here.
| } else { | ||
| "" | ||
| }, | ||
| if params.contains_key("id") { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible to have both id and either sender or receiver? I think that combination will produce AND AND.
| /// - msg_id: the message's rowid (from the events table) | ||
| /// | ||
| /// Archiving is equivalent to deleting, given message can't be truly deleted. | ||
| /// Archiving is a proactive action equivalent to a node pruning an message (an message's historical event) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would probably be better if these comments were in the wit document. Docs in wit are actually extractable from the raw wasm, and therefore can be used to display docs for a plugin without source code access
| @@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ interface types { | |||
| receiver: string, | |||
| sender: string, | |||
| subject: string, | |||
| body: string | |||
| body: string, | |||
| datetime: u32 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This datetime should be converted to a utc string before returning it to the UI, so the UI can easily construct a Date with it. You can check the invite plugin to see how I already did this over there:
let expiry = DateTime::from_timestamp(invite.expiry as i64, 0)
.ok_or(DatetimeError.err("decode_invite"))?
.to_string();
|
|
||
| let itr = query.split("&"); | ||
| for p in itr { | ||
| let kv = p.split_once("=").unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using expect here to give just a little more info in case the user serializes the request wrong
| datetime: u32, | ||
| ) { | ||
| check( | ||
| get_sender() == receiver, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This check doesn't actually work. A client could simply spoof the receiver and we can't verify it since we can't read the events table. The implication here is that anyone can save anything, including fake/altered messages.
In the future we could address this by having emails be signed, which would allow anyone to verify that the sender's signing key was used to sign the saved email.
| /// Unsave a message | ||
| /// `unsave` releases the state storage for a previously saved message | ||
| #[action] | ||
| fn unsave(msg_id: u64, sender: AccountNumber, subject: String, body: String, datetime: u32) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed, this can be removed from the action interface, and simply done as part of the archive action
| pub body: String, | ||
| #[serde(deserialize_with = "deserialize_timepoint")] | ||
| pub datetime: u32, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, is it possible to deserialize with either:
- The
SavedMessagestruct in the service, or - The generated
Messageobject from your bindings?
Just seems a bit strange to essentially have three definitions of a Message type... Maybe it's needed though?
James-Mart
added
the
System app
Implements/fulfills #855