Configuration Overhaul RFC

[0x009922]

Rendered

---

Original PR:

• [RFC]: Configuration Overhaul iroha#3795

Checklist

• Tech writers review
• Make a note about migration (context)
• Address handling of dev-related fields (context)

[mversic]

I think we should also add a way to inject private parameters in a configuration. Those parameters should start with an underscore and should never be a part of our public API contract (and would most likely be only used during testing). If any user depends on this parameter it's on their own responsibility.

A good example of such a parameter is sumeragi::debug_force_soft_fork which, according to what I wrote, should be sumeragi::_force_soft_fork. No user would or should ever use this parameter unless he is an Iroha developer

[0x009922]

@mversic, I thought about this topic too when faced those several parameters "for development/debugging/testing purposes". Agreed that they should not be a part of our public API.

As for the format, I have some alternatives. IMO, using named nested sections for it might be more explicit:

[sumeragi.debug]
force_soft_fork = true

[kura.debug]
output_new_blocks = true

Another way might be to have an entirely separate debug section with all of the parameters:

[debug]
sumeragi.force_soft_fork = true
kura.output_new_blocks = true

Not sure what keyword to use for it: dev, debug, test, unstable, or something else?

[0x009922]

New changes:

• Combined a proposal "reconsider parameter naming conventions", which includes snake_case, dev fields ("private" fields), and more renaming samples.
• Added a brief proposal for human-readable types
• Removed "dual view" proposal
• In the implementation plan, include a migration tool development