feat: conway primitives

[jmhrpr]

WIP, not tested

[scarmuega]

wow! amazing 🚀

do you know if any Babbage tx can be considered a subset of Conway? or is anything in Conway that breaks backward compatibility?

I'm asking because we could potentially introduce a ConwayCompatible concept as we do with AlonzoCompatible to reduce the total number of distinct branches.

[jmhrpr]

wow! amazing 🚀

do you know if any Babbage tx can be considered a subset of Conway? or is anything in Conway that breaks backward compatibility?

I'm asking because we could potentially introduce a ConwayCompatible concept as we do with AlonzoCompatible to reduce the total number of distinct branches.

A field was removed from transaction body (update field) and multiple were added, I don’t know if that answers your question or not. Also a number of types within the transaction body were changed.

[scarmuega]

yes, that answers my question.

If Conway removes the update field then it breaks compatibility and we can't use the same primitives.

PR looks good as it is then. Anything missing besides some tests?

[jmhrpr]

yes, that answers my question.

If Conway removes the update field then it breaks compatibility and we can't use the same primitives.

PR looks good as it is then. Anything missing besides some tests?

There is pretty much no data on sanchonet to test against at the moment, so I plan on building some transactions with the CLI at some point. But it successfully decoded all the Conway blocks that were present on the chain a couple days ago.

[scarmuega]

Makes sense. I say we merge it as it is and add a follow-up issue to include some tests once there's more data available.

Feel free to flag the PR ready for review if you agree.

[jmhrpr]

I will give it a review against the CDDL at some point soon to try catch any mistakes first, then mark ready for review

[scarmuega]

I would create a new feature called Governance or CIP1694

[kevinhammond]

wow! amazing 🚀

do you know if any Babbage tx can be considered a subset of Conway? or is anything in Conway that breaks backward compatibility?

Governance proposals and MIRs are removed from Conway (superseded). I think all the other changes will be backwards compatible (CIP1694, Plutus v3 etc are additions)

[scarmuega]

thank you @kevinhammond, that confirms our findings.

@jmhrpr should we merge using the unstable flag as we discussed and continue with the remaining tasks in a different PR?

[lisicky]

Hi guys. PR looks good, but I have changes some things since CDDL was changed. And found that some of plutus related struct didn't implement plutus v3 . All of these changes I pushed into the PR could you @jmhrpr review and merge it ?

All this changes I have tested against the CSL except aux data.

CDDL changes:
- NewCommittee was renamed to UpdateCommittee
- Committee was deleted

Update plutus v3 related structs
I also added a test with manually constructed block with a tx which contains all conway certs, voting proposals and voting procedures

But also I have a question, did you guys have ever tested deserialisation of babbage block with plutus v2 in auxiliary data ?
If you wanna to check how pallas builds a block/tx/whatever you can use this tool https://cardananium.github.io/cquisitor/ . It uses CSL under the hood.

[lisicky]

Also we wanna to use oura with conway support. Is it possible to merge this changes ?

[scarmuega]

@jmhrpr if you can fix the merge conflicts, I'll merge it as it is and apply the unstable flag that we discussed.

[jmhrpr]

@scarmuega done