Support for granting ValidatorLicense via SV UI #2905

dfordivam · 2025-10-28T04:38:12Z

Fixes #2904

Adds support for granting ValidatorLicense via SV UI and console.
Show weight + License kind in ValidatorLicense UI
- Weight will only be shown if it is non-null
- For kind I have chosen to show a check-mark only when the license is of a non-validator party, as showing a check-mark for every validator party would make the UI too noisy.
Scan API fixes: ValidatorReceivedFaucets
And includes scala code fixes for the daml changes introduced in Daml: Add weight, kind to ValidatorLicense, and SV grant license support #2903

Pull Request Checklist

Cluster Testing

If a cluster test is required, comment /cluster_test on this PR to request it, and ping someone with access to the DA-internal system to approve it.
If a hard-migration test is required (from the latest release), comment /hdm_test on this PR to request it, and ping someone with access to the DA-internal system to approve it.

PR Guidelines

Include any change that might be observable by our partners or affect their deployment in the release notes.
Specify fixed issues with Fixes #n, and mention issues worked on using #n
Include a screenshot for frontend-related PRs - see README or use your favorite screenshot tool

Merge Guidelines

Make the git commit message look sensible when squash-merging on GitHub (most likely: just copy your PR description).

dfordivam · 2025-10-28T04:51:00Z

Screenshots

New fields in /validator-onboarding for granting license.
And Validator Licenses table shows "Weight" and "Non-operator" columns

Screenshot 2025-10-28 at 11-52-50 Super Validator Operations

Confirmation prompt when trying to grant a license

Screenshot 2025-10-28 at 11-53-30 Super Validator Operations

New License visible in table, along with check-mark for "Non-operator".

Screenshot 2025-10-28 at 11-54-08 Super Validator Operations

Error shown when party is invalid

Screenshot 2025-10-28 at 11-54-40 Super Validator Operations

Button is disabled when UI detects a typo

Screenshot 2025-10-28 at 11-55-17 Super Validator Operations

Scan-app's /validator-licenses also shows new columns

Screenshot 2025-10-28 at 11-56-24 Amulet Scan

isegall-da · 2025-10-28T09:19:57Z

@dfordivam I'm confused. I thought we agreed that we're breaking the work into a series of small PRs that one can effectively review. It's very hard to review thoroughly a PR of this magnitude that's a code dump of your complete work.
Specifically, if you have fixes to another PR that's still open, please apply the fixes there instead of including them here, so that every PR is a self-contained and complete unit of work.

dfordivam · 2025-10-28T09:38:44Z

@isegall-da I would have preferred to change the "base" branch, such that the daml changes included in this branch are not shown in this PR. (I could not set the base to my branch as it is on a fork).
But I guess it would be better to simply remove the daml commits; at least for the review purpose the daml changes need not be present in this PR.

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

isegall-da · 2025-10-28T12:12:17Z

@isegall-da I would have preferred to change the "base" branch, such that the daml changes included in this branch are not shown in this PR. (I could not set the base to my branch as it is on a fork). But I guess it would be better to simply remove the daml commits; at least for the review purpose the daml changes need not be present in this PR.

Why can't you base the branch on your own branch? You can stack multiple PRs one on top of the other, thus breaking the work into chunks that a reviewer can digest and review effectively.

isegall-da · 2025-10-28T12:14:39Z

Alternatively, you can rework the git history in the branch such that it's a series of self-contained commits that one can review one at a time.

dfordivam · 2025-10-29T01:05:15Z

Why can't you base the branch on your own branch? You can stack multiple PRs one on top of the other, thus breaking the work into chunks that a reviewer can digest and review effectively.

So its just a Github limitation, my branch is on the fork, and the base branch has to be on hyperledger-labs/splice.
The simplest solution in this scenario is to give me access to push branch to this repo. Other workarounds are a bit more complicated or have limitations, as breaking the work such that it does not use commits present in other PRs would limit how much I can practically breakdown changes into reviewable chunks.

meiersi-da · 2025-10-30T15:39:42Z

I'll review tomorrow morning my time.

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T10:51:47Z

@dfordivam : on

wdyt about adding 'default: 1.0' when the weight is not set?

I'd also suggest to invert the double-negation: call the column "Operator" and add a checkmark if its an operator license.

meiersi-da

Nice work @dfordivam !

Looks good up to the testing changes and small pieces of missing functionality. Let me know when you've addressed that so I can do a second review.

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T10:42:35Z

apps/app/src/main/scala/org/lfdecentralizedtrust/splice/console/SvAppReference.scala

    }

+  @Help.Summary("Grant a ValidatorLicense to a validator party (via admin API)")
+  def grantValidatorLicense(partyId: PartyId): Unit =


what about setting a non-standard weight?

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T10:53:30Z

apps/scan/src/main/openapi/scan.yaml

+        weight:
+          description: |
+            Weight of the activity records produced by this license. Determined
+            through SV votes. If not set, weight is 1.0


wdyt about making the field required and always setting the default value. Thereby limiting the propagation of the default? No need for the clients to implement the defaulting, or is there?

By always returning the default value, instead of missing field/null, we are losing information which may be useful for the clients. I can set it if required.

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T10:53:46Z

apps/scan/src/main/openapi/scan.yaml

+        kind:
+          description: |
+            Type of license: OperatorLicense or NonOperatorLicense. If not set,
+            kind is OperatorLicense


Same here: resolve the default on the server.

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T10:56:59Z

...g/lfdecentralizedtrust/splice/sv/automation/confirmation/SummarizingMiningRoundTrigger.scala

+        Optional.empty(), // optTotalValidatorFaucetCoupons (deprecated)
+        Optional.of(
+          java.math.BigDecimal.valueOf(validatorLivenessActivityRecords)
+        ), // optTotalValidatorLivenessActivityRecords


I can't find the corresponding change to the store method to retrieve the sum of weights. Am I looking in the wrong place?

I'd have expected:

an adjusted SvDsoStoreTest

an adjusted integration test for validator faucet coupons that tests a non-default weight license

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T10:57:43Z

apps/sv/src/main/openapi/sv-internal.yaml

+    GrantValidatorLicenseRequest:
+      type: object
+      required:
+        - party_id


meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T11:51:40Z

...la/org/lfdecentralizedtrust/splice/integration/tests/SvValidatorLicenseIntegrationTest.scala

+}
+import scala.jdk.OptionConverters.*
+
+class SvValidatorLicenseIntegrationTest extends SvIntegrationTestBase {


This start a 4SV topology, which is unnecessarily expensive for this kind of test. I know there are other tests that do the same, but they should ideally also be adjusted.

Having had a peek at the tests we have I suggest: you merge your new test with the one in https://github.com/hyperledger-labs/splice/blob/main/apps/app/src/test/scala/org/lfdecentralizedtrust/splice/integration/tests/SvMergeDuplicatedValidatorLicenseIntegrationTest.scala (probably want to use your name), but use the environment setup from there:

splice/apps/app/src/test/scala/org/lfdecentralizedtrust/splice/integration/tests/SvMergeDuplicatedValidatorLicenseIntegrationTest.scala

Lines 25 to 33 in 63de58e

override def environmentDefinition

: org.lfdecentralizedtrust.splice.integration.EnvironmentDefinition =

EnvironmentDefinition

.simpleTopology1Sv(this.getClass.getSimpleName)

.addConfigTransforms((_, config) =>

updateAutomationConfig(ConfigurableApp.Sv)(

_.withPausedTrigger[MergeValidatorLicenseContractsTrigger]

)(config)

)

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T11:52:53Z

...la/org/lfdecentralizedtrust/splice/integration/tests/SvValidatorLicenseIntegrationTest.scala

+
+    val dsoParty = sv1Backend.getDsoInfo().dsoParty
+    val sv1Party = sv1Backend.getDsoInfo().svParty
+    val validatorParty = allocateRandomSvParty("test-validator", Some(100))


that sounds off. This party gets allocated on sv1, which means we might not discover problems due to non-local reads.

I'd suggest to instead just grant the license to alice

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T11:53:45Z

...la/org/lfdecentralizedtrust/splice/integration/tests/SvValidatorLicenseIntegrationTest.scala

+class SvValidatorLicenseIntegrationTest extends SvIntegrationTestBase {
+
+  "grant validator license via admin API" in { implicit env =>
+    initDso()


Suggested change

initDso()

having to manually start nodes should only be required in special circumstances ==> it's a bit of a test smell.

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T11:53:57Z

...la/org/lfdecentralizedtrust/splice/integration/tests/SvValidatorLicenseIntegrationTest.scala

+    val validatorParty = allocateRandomSvParty("test-validator", Some(100))
+
+    // Verify no license exists initially
+    val initialLicenses = sv1Backend.participantClientWithAdminToken.ledger_api_extensions.acs


read through alice's node

meiersi-da · 2025-10-31T11:58:50Z

apps/sv/frontend/src/components/ValidatorOnboardingSecrets.tsx

        </Button>
      </DisableConditionally>
+
+      {grantLicenseMutation.isError && (


@isegall-da : the code looks OK, but I have done too little frontend work to be sure. Could you have a peek or delegate having a peek?

We're missing weight also in the UI, but given that the endpoint doesn't have one I guess that makes sense for now (happy for it to be added in a followup PR). Otherwise, looks good

Setting a weight when granting license is prohibited by the CIP, the weight always defaults to none. Hence daml, scala and UI does not have an option to specify it.

isegall-da · 2025-10-31T16:26:39Z

apps/sv/frontend/src/components/ValidatorOnboardingSecrets.tsx


-const VALID_PARTY_ID_REGEX = /^[^-]+-[^-]+-\d+$/;
+const VALID_PARTY_HINT_REGEX = /^[^-]+-[^-]+-\d+$/;
+const VALID_PARTY_ID_REGEX = /^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+::[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+$/;


@meiersi-da is the fingerprint part of of constant length? Can we strengthen this check to be an exact match on it?

it currently is of constant length and hex encoded, but I wouldn't be surprised if it changes in the future. Would you be OK with having to change this regex in that case?

Probably makes sense to check here, as dropping a fingerprint digit is quite easy when manually copying a party-id. I'll ask the Canton team about the guarantees.

Yes, I think I'd be inclined to have this assert tightly on the current constraints, and potentially relax that in the future if needed. Quite easy to get a copy-paste of a long blob wrong.

@dfordivam : I've checked with the Canton team. Here's the regex they propose to use:
^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,185}::[A-Fa-f0-9]{68}$ please switch to that one.

dfordivam had a problem deploying to ci-forks October 28, 2025 04:38 — with GitHub Actions Error

github-actions bot assigned isegall-da, martinflorian-da and ray-roestenburg-da Oct 28, 2025

dfordivam changed the title S Support for granting ValidatorLicense via SV UI Oct 28, 2025

dfordivam added 13 commits October 28, 2025 18:39

Code fixes

a095906

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

API to grant ValidatorLicense

fb384e1

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

grantValidatorLicense

4cd812c

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

SV client grantValidatorLicense

6620f1d

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

Grant VL UI

50507e4

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

Show weight and is 'non-operator' in Validator Licenses table

5f4b9f2

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

Test for SV grant validator license UI

7c4e086

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

FrontendIntegrationTest test for grant validator license

8f209bb

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

Add new Integration test for ValidatorLicense grant

14363b9

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

Update test-full-class-names.log

6415498

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

Ignore DsoRules_GrantValidatorLicense

9b1b336

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

Add weight, kind to ValidatorReceivedFaucets

276dc8f

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

Set weight, kind for ValidatorReceivedFaucets

1e3dc30

Signed-off-by: Divam <[email protected]>

dfordivam force-pushed the dn/cip-0073-grant-validator-license branch from 3c79212 to 1e3dc30 Compare October 28, 2025 09:41

dfordivam requested a deployment to ci-forks October 28, 2025 09:41 — with GitHub Actions Waiting

meiersi-da reviewed Oct 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

isegall-da reviewed Oct 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

martinflorian-da assigned meiersi-da and unassigned ray-roestenburg-da, isegall-da and martinflorian-da Nov 3, 2025

	override def environmentDefinition
	: org.lfdecentralizedtrust.splice.integration.EnvironmentDefinition =
	EnvironmentDefinition
	.simpleTopology1Sv(this.getClass.getSimpleName)
	.addConfigTransforms((_, config) =>
	updateAutomationConfig(ConfigurableApp.Sv)(
	_.withPausedTrigger[MergeValidatorLicenseContractsTrigger]
	)(config)
	)

Support for granting ValidatorLicense via SV UI #2905

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Support for granting ValidatorLicense via SV UI #2905

Conversation

dfordivam commented Oct 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Checklist

Cluster Testing

PR Guidelines

Merge Guidelines

Uh oh!

dfordivam commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

isegall-da commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

dfordivam commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

isegall-da commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

isegall-da commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

dfordivam commented Oct 29, 2025

Uh oh!

meiersi-da commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

meiersi-da commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

meiersi-da left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfordivam Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

dfordivam commented Oct 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dfordivam Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading