Extend 'Block' to also contain delegation certificates registrations

[KtorZ]

Context

Delegation certificate registration (a pair of a pool id and an account public key) can be present in blocks. We'll have to be able to process them and adjust the wallet delegation settings accordingly.

Decision

• Extend primitive 'Block' type to also contain delegation certificates registrations. e.g.

  data Block tx = Block
      { header
          :: !BlockHeader
      , transactions
          :: ![tx]
      , delegations
          :: ![(XPub, PoolId)]
      } 

• Extend Jörmungandr Binary decoder to decode certificate messages & adjust conversion functions from Jörmungandr 'Block' to our new primitive 'Block'.

Acceptance Criteria

1. Cardano.Wallet.Primitive.Types#Block must contain delegation registrations requests
2. Cardano.Wallet.Jormungandr.Binary#Block must contain delegation registrations requests
3. cardano-wallet-jormungandr must support correctly map Type 3 messages and Type 1 messages to primitive Block

---

Development Plan

• Extend the Jörmungandr Block type to contain stake delegations.
• Adjust the convertBlock function to populate the delegations field when converting from a Jörmungandr block to Wallet-layer block.
• Write golden tests for convertBlock with golden blocks with delegations.

PR

Number	Base
#1043	master

QA

Covered by QA tasks in issue #899.

[jonathanknowles]

Hi @KtorZ, are you able to say what "Type 3" and "Type 1" refer to in the acceptance criterion below:

3. cardano-wallet-jormungandr must support correctly map Type 3 messages and Type 1 messages to primitive Block

I had a look through and couldn't see anything obvious. Thanks in advance!

[KtorZ]

@jonathanknowles this refers to the fragment type (a.k.a fragment spec in Jormungandr).
Yet, since I wrote this ticket, type 3 became type 4 :)

What's important to capture here is that delegation certificates should now be part of our primitive blocks, as the title suggests.

[KtorZ]

*Putting this back to In progress because:

• We're missing the PRs links into to PR section
• The QA section is empty.

[jonathanknowles]

@KtorZ in your opinion, are additional tests required over and above the tests already provided by #899? (PR #1050).

We could of course provide additional unit or property tests for the convertBlock function.

[KtorZ]

I don't think so no. With all the integration tests for this one and the binary unit tests, it seems to me that it's already well tested. 1

[jonathanknowles]

@KtorZ wrote:

I don't think so no. With all the integration tests for this one and the binary unit tests, it seems to me that it's already well tested. 1

Okay in that case, I'll adjust the QA section to refer to the tests produced as part of fixing issue #899.

Thanks for confirming!

[piotr-iohk]

lgtm.