docs: clarify ContractUpdateValidator scope and threat model#4465
Merged
j1010001 merged 1 commit intoApr 14, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Add a package-level comment and a checkField doc comment to make explicit that the validator's purpose is storage compatibility only — not a general-purpose interface freeze. Access modifiers and let/var mutability are intentionally out of scope because they do not affect storage serialization. Includes a link to the contract updatability docs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.Snapshot WarningsEnsure that dependencies are being submitted on PR branches and consider enabling retry-on-snapshot-warnings. See the documentation for more information and troubleshooting advice. Scanned FilesNone |
Benchstat comparison
Results
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
turbolent
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2026
turbolent
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice!
Could we please also add this to the top of https://cadence-lang.org/docs/language/contract-updatability ?
j1010001
added a commit
to onflow/cadence-lang.org
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2026
Add a 'Threat model and scope' section at the top of the contract updatability page to make explicit that the validator's purpose is storage compatibility only — not a general-purpose interface freeze. Access modifiers and let/var mutability are intentionally out of scope because they do not affect storage serialization. Mirrors the clarification added to stdlib/contract_update_validation.go in onflow/cadence#4465. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
stdlib/contract_update_validation.goexplaining the validator's narrow purpose: storage compatibility, not a general-purpose interface freeze.let/varmutability are intentionally out of scope.checkField()pointing to the package-level explanation.Motivation
The validator's design intent was not documented, making it easy to misread the absence of access-modifier and mutability checks as oversights rather than deliberate decisions. This change makes the threat model explicit in the source so that readers — including security researchers — have the context needed to correctly assess the validator's behaviour.
Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code