►
From YouTube: EOS MANDEL Meeting #18 (June 8th 2022)
Description
This week the Mandel meeting group discusses last week's feedback on DUNE, increasing legacy features on Jungle, and how to best configure feature limits.
Summary
🟢 In progress action items are on track:
#55
Based on feedback from EOS Developer, Artem Maluga from A-DEX, D.U.N.E., the new development environment will be adding support for unit testing and debugging tools for smart contracts.
ENF developers have reached consensus that native Mac support will be dropped and replaced with D.U.N.E.
#41
June 7 go/no-go call for Mandel 3.1 RC1 release was a no-go. The next go/no-go meeting will be on June 14. There's a high likelihood it will be a go, as there were only minor items left to address.
We discussed the consensus features and which ones we will target to activate and test:
#44
EOS Nation is continuing to test the latest builds on Jungle4 and has no problems to report.
#40
We discussed the next steps for testing on Kylin testnet. Coordination with Kylin BPs will be required to get Kylin in the appropriate condition for testing.
Participants (20)
Host: Daniel Keyes | EOS Nation
EOSUSA Michael
Aleksandr Aksenov
Yves La Rose
Max_Cho EdenOnEOS Member-South Korea
Kevin Heifner
Genie Kim - EOSeoul# NEOPLY
Vlad
Jeff Werner
Stephen Diesel
Bucky Kittinger
Alysha Mims
Ross (EOSphere)
Ted Cahall
junhank | NodeONE
Randall Roland
Johnsonb - Object Computing# Inc.
Rob
Denis Carriere
Andrii Cryptolions
00:00:00 Recap from last week by Daniel Keyes
00:00:48 Platform Support DUNE feedback by Bucky, Ted
00:04:24 Mandel code strategy update by Ted Cahall
00:06:24 Testing on Jungle 4 by Michael, Daniel
00:08:33 Align on Objectives and Jungle legacy features by Michael, Yves, Kevin
00:29:00 Release notes and Legacy Feature configurations by Michael, Yves, Kevin
00:51:05 Wrapping it up by Daniel Keyes
00:51:56 End
Everything EOS is the official media channel of the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://eosn.foundation
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosn.foundation
#EOS #EOSIO #ENF
A
A
What
I
understand
some
progress
made
as
a
result
of
that
feedback,
so
we
can
check
in
get
an
update
there
from
from
the
team
we'll
check
in
on
how
we're
doing
with
the
mandel
3.1
go
no
go
status,
any
updates
on
testing,
and
if
there
are
any
other
items,
anyone
would
like
to
add
to
the
agenda
feel
free
to
to
raise
them,
and-
and
we
can
talk
about
those
two,
so
why
don't
we
start
with
platform
support?
Do
we
have
bucky
on
the
line
today?
Yeah
yeah.
C
A
B
B
A
A
D
We're
happy
with
yeah,
I
think,
we're
there
now.
I
think,
we've
even
pretty
much
gotten
there
consensus-wise
with
everyone
that
had
had
felt
the
opposite
way
of
like
wanting
to
directly
support
max
with
with
the
eos
io
tester
stuff,
coming
on
board,
when
bucky
gets
a
chance
to
do
that,
we
really
feel
that
we've
got
everything
covered
and
that
dune
is
the
answer
and
we're
going
to
support
these
three
versions
of
ubuntu
going
forward.
A
D
We
decided
to
put
it
off
one
more
week.
We
could
have
gone
today,
but
I
think
it
would
be
a
little
tight.
Everything
is
in
there
were
people
still
doing
pr
reviews
they
felt
they
could
do
it,
but
I
I'm
kind
of
of
the
mindset
that
if
you
release
junk
people,
remember
it
for
a
long
time
and
if
you
take
an
extra
week,
people
forget
about
that
in
a
little
bit
of
time.
There's
no
big
marketing
release
here
that
we're
aligning
to
and
we're
really
just
releasing
into
test
net.
D
I
really
preferred
to
have
all
of
the
the
test
cases
unit,
test
cases
written
and
run
through,
and
people
feeling
like
they
had
a
little
bit
of
breathing
room
to
to
really
dig
into
the
pr's
and
review
them.
So
we
we
opted
for
one
more
week,
but
I
am
99.9
just
three
nines,
not
five
nines
percent
sure
that
we
will
go
next
week
likely
on
wednesday
we'll
have
the
go,
no
go
again
on
tuesday.
D
You
know
if
people
want
to
start
rolling
it
out
tuesday,
you
know
afternoon
after
the
1
pm
go
no
go
call.
That
will
be
fine,
but
it
really
it
probably
could
have
gone
today.
I
just
really
prefer
that
we
shake
it
out,
you
know
and
make
sure
everything's
in
there
all
the
evm
stuff
and
all
the
black
lug
splitting
stuff
that
was
kind
of
the
law
that
were
the
long
poles
in
the
tent
have
have
been
addressed.
A
A
E
Yeah
I
went
to
go,
pull
it
and
build
at
least
the
latest
version
out.
There
didn't
find
the
tag,
but
so
it
was
the
latest
code
thanks
matthew,
but
about
to
start
chasing
down
that
new
build
process.
I
saw
cc
and
some
folks
discussing
about
how
those
scripts
are
new
and
different
now,
so
I
was
about
to
try
to
run
through
it
earlier,
but
now
I
got
to
kind
of
sit
and
think
about
it
and
figure
out
those
prereq
scripts
and
all
of
that,
so
just
a
little
different.
E
E
Yeah
really
going
to
try
to
start
the
state.
History
is
what
I'm
kind
of
focusing
on.
I,
I
don't
think
any
of
the
upcoming
ending
changes
change
anything
on
state
history
right,
the
state
history,
log
trimming.
I
do
believe
that
is
in
the
pending
features,
but
as
for
the
format
and-
and
that's
where
we
really
get
caught
is
when
it
doesn't
answer
the
same.
So
I'm
gonna
start
testing
some
of
that.
D
A
E
B
E
Would
you
say
the
the
version,
whatever
the
latest
version
is,
I
know
they
just
proposed
would
probably
be
adequate
yeah
as
a
good
effort
that
may
kind
of
solve
itself
but
yeah.
I
guess
right
behind
the
system
contracts.
Maybe
we
activate
all
the
features
if
we
want
to
do
that
to
jungle
again,
that's
why
we
had
to
make
jungle
forwards,
because
jungle
three
had
all
the
features
turned
on.
Is
that
still
the
strategy.
G
E
G
G
That
way
I
mean
others
can
turn
on
the
functions
if
they,
if
they
want
to
they'll,
need
to
reach
the
consensus
for
it.
But
we
should
turn
on
the
functions
that
we
plan
on
turning
on
in
september
and
really
that
consensus
upgrade
can
simply
be
one
of
the
functions.
So
there
are
functions
that
are
put
into
the
code
that
we
never
asked
for
and
that
we
never
intended
to
to
turn
on
because
there's
no
no
demand
for
them.
G
If
you
want
to
turn
them
on,
go
for
it,
but
really
the
purpose
should
be
at
the
minimum
to
turn
on
those
that
we
intend
on
turning
on
in
september
and
yes,
ted,
we
should
try
to
plan
for
those
either
in
july,
so
that
they
run
for
about
two
months
or
at
the
latest,
early
august
got
it
which
and
based
on
the
the
current
time
frame.
I
guess
I
know
you
change
screen,
but
because
we're
early
for
rc1,
I
don't
envision
that
the
final
would
be
august.
G
I
G
G
I
guess
there's
a
few
things
there
is
is
upgrade
to
3.1
final
assumes
that
there
isn't.
There
are
things
that
are
found
in
rc1
that
need
to
be
patched
there's
nothing
that
needs
to
be.
That
needs
to
be
passed.
Essentially,
rc1
becomes
final
right,
so
there's
nothing
to
upgrade
to
and
what's
different
between
this
time
and
other
times
previously.
A
G
G
Well,
I'm
optimistic
that
that,
essentially,
by
september
23rd,
first
of
all
we
should
be
able
to
meet
that
date
is
what
I'm
thinking,
but
that
the
final
release-
let's
say
whatever,
if
it's
3.1
rc1
that
simply
gets
ported
over
or
if
there's
an
rc2,
which
becomes
the
final
that
that
should
happen
before
early
august.
I'm
thinking-
that's,
maybe
more
accurate
to
say,
mid
july
at
this
point,
which
is
great
which
which
gives
us
again,
I
wouldn't
change
the
september
23rd.
G
It
just
gives
up
more
time
for
testing,
there's
more
buffer
and
then
testing
specifically
the
functions
that
we
do
plan.
So
maybe
the
discussion
we
do
need
to
have
is
of
those
consensus
upgrade
features
which
ones
are
we
going
to
turn
on
right
because,
historically,
we
don't
just
turn
them
on
to
turn
them
on.
There's
there
needs
to
be
a
demand
for
it,
so
it
is
quite
possible
that
there
are
none
that
we
actually
want
to
turn
on
and
we're
just
turning
one
on
for
the
symbolic
reason
of
doing
a
consensus
upgrade.
G
J
G
J
A
D
There
had
been
a
couple
of
flags
that
I
think
when
dan's
team
made
the
first
mandel
3.0
were
added
and
I
don't
know
if
we're
planning
on
still
turning
those
on
I
do.
Do
you
remember.
I'd
have
to
go,
look
up
what
they
were
eve,
but
they
were
in
dan's
early
contract
to
us.
He
listed
two.
You
know
two
hard
fork.
You
know
like
flags
that
would
be
turned
on
on
the
consensus
upgrade.
I
don't
know
if
we
still
plan
to
do
those
or
not.
G
But
that's
a
good
good
question.
I
I
think
I'll
have
to
go
back
and
check.
I'm
not
sure
he
actually,
if
you
actually
put
them
in
or
not
yeah,
that's
that's
one
thing
and
then
I'm
not
even
sure
that
was
still
relevant.
I
think
because
one
of
them
had
to
do
with
get
contract
hash,
maybe
yeah
yeah,
so
that.
J
D
J
G
G
So
if
dan,
I
guess
one
of
the
ways
I'd
look
at
this
is
if
dan
had
wanted
them
for
a
reason,
because
he's
building
something
that
that's
the
community,
essentially
he's
part
of
the
community.
So
he's
saying
I
would
like
those
features,
so
I
personally
would
say
if
somebody's
asked,
let's
turn
them
on
let's
so
this
is
historically.
G
Why
we
haven't
turned
on
features
is
even
after
we
didn't
turn
them
on.
Nobody
was
asking
for
them,
so
there
was
no
sense
in
turning
them
on
just
to
have
them
there,
potentially
creating
issues
that
really
there's
no
there's
no
purpose
for
so
of
the
ones
that
he
mentioned.
I
would
turn
all
of
them
on,
because
then
that
might
be
useful
for
him
and
and
whatever
he
is
building.
D
E
G
E
E
B
E
G
E
We
could
bring
kyle
in
up,
I
don't
think
it's
it
didn't,
have
all
the
activations
any
more
than
the
eos
main
net
turned
on,
which
I
think
would
be
2-0.
I
mean
and
there's
only
like
six
of
us
that
are
running
it.
Basically,
so
I
mean
we
could
bring
it
up.
That
was
the
question
I
was
asking:
do
we
want
to
have
a
burn
it
to
the
ground?
Jungle
turn
them
all
on
and
kylan.
Let's
get
it
are
we
maybe
the
idea,
but
do
we
have.
A
G
E
G
The
same
effect
as
what
we
were
traditionally
doing
with
jungle
where
it's
it's
not
only
do
the
functions
get
turned
on,
but
people
try
to
break
them
that
you
won't
necessarily
get
if
you
run
your
own
test
net
because
it
agrees
it's
not
the
same.
So
yes,
I'm
I'm
good
with
turning
on
all
the
functions
on
jungle,
then
the
issue
becomes,
if
one
of
the
other
functions
that
we
don't
plan
on.
Turning
on
is
one
of
the
problems.
G
E
G
With
you
I'm
more
just
well,
typically,
both
would
happen.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
the
luxury
right
now,
because
we
don't
have
kylie
unless
daniel.
You
guys
put
an
emphasis
on
michael
on
bringing
up
kylian
to
date.
Kylie
part
of
the
problem
was
it
was
too
decentralized.
So
jungle
is
always
super.
Centralized.
It's
really
easy.
G
G
G
E
G
E
G
We
have
enough
time
to
be
able
to
do
that.
If
you
guys
coordinate
that
and
then
yes,
then
I
would
agree
jungle
turn
everything
on
the
traditional
or
historical
function
that
the
jungle
fulfilled.
Let's
do
that
that
was
needed.
That
was
quite
good,
plus
most
people
typically
deploy
in
jungle
as
well.
So
you
have
a
lot
of
contracts.
Running
you've
got
a
lot
of
actual
real
worst
real
world
case,
where
it's
kind
less
so
so
that
was
more
of
a
mirror.
E
G
G
It
depends
how
many
tokens
do
you
have
so
in
jungle,
it's
really
easy,
because
bowden
can
just
deploy
the
contract
single-handedly
they
control
it.
They've
got
the
keys,
it's
good.
Do
we
have
that
capacity
on
kyle?
If
we
don't,
then
it
always
requires
consensus
and
that's
what
historically
was
always
difficult.
I.
E
Think
there
are
some
teams
that
are
in
contact
that
can
at
least
make
some
waves.
I
don't
know
if
it's
complete
control,
but
I
think
that
there
were
a
few
it's
just
hard
to
get
them
on
the
fly,
but
if
we
make
an
effort
to
reach
out
and
look
at
blockchain
and
see
who
the
bags
are,
I
think
we
might
be
able
to.
We
have
a
pretty
good
control
of
it.
Fine
I'll
run
three
or
four
or
four
or
five.
E
G
E
A
Yeah
so
yeah-
and
I
do
I
had
spoken
in
the
past,
so
it
would
have
been
weeks
or
months
ago,
even
with
lao
mao
who
previously
were
running
the
faucet,
and
they
said
they
would
be
willing
to
re-enable
the
faucet.
But
I
haven't,
since
I
last
follow
up,
haven't
heard
anything
so
I'll
follow
up
with
them
again.
Maybe
we
can
get
a
faucet
from
my
mouth
and
maybe
between
you
and
I
michael.
We
can
work
on
hurting
some
cats
and
getting
getting
kylon
in
a
reusable
state
for
for
mandel
testing.
E
A
A
G
G
A
A
B
G
G
A
J
J
B
G
B
Anything
like
the
the
so
there
was
a
bug
in
in
1.0
with
forwarding
set
code
to
eso
contracts,
because
we
every
one
of
those
native
actions.
We
can
we
forward
through
to
eoso
contract
so
that
it
can
kind
of
do
whatever
things
it
wants
to
do,
and
then
setco
was
the
one
that
was
kind
of
causing
a
recursive
bug,
so
we
killed
it
out
in
in
version
1.0,
and
then
we
brought
it
back
in
in
case.
If
anybody
ever
needed
it,
and
we
just
we've,
never
used
it
anywhere.
B
C
J
The
limits,
the
the
blockchain
parameters
and
the
wasm
limits
once
enabled
there
can
be
discussion
around
changing
those
limits.
That's
the
reason
you
enable
those
is
so
that
you
can
then
change
the
limits
if
you're
not
gonna,
actually
change
any
of
the
limits.
There's
no
reason
to
to
activate
them.
A
A
J
Yeah,
I
think
there
and
I'm
not
sure
who
comes
up
with
what
these
settings
need
to
be
presumably
whoever's
needing
that
functionality.
If
it's
the
the
evm
developers
or
whoever's
needing
that,
you
know
what
they're,
particularly
wanting
those
values
to
be.
I
think
that
needs
to
be
probably
discussed,
and
then
those
particular
values
that
are
required
should
be
the
ones
used
for
for
testing.
B
B
J
J
G
G
J
I
think
there's
been
a
general
call
for
at
least
some
of
these
limits
to
be
increased,
for
instance,
the
ones
off
top.
My
head,
I
believe,
are
the
the
inline
action
depth
limit
and
the
amount
of
data
that
you
can
then
pass
to
an
inline
action.
Those
limits,
I
believe,
have
been
called
for
from
various
components.
People
wishing
they
were
for
larger
for
various
reasons,
for
example,
one
one
use
case:
there
is
the
ability
to
do
like
a
set
code
via
an
inline
action
is
currently
limited
by
by
one
of
these
settings.
A
Okay,
so
we
have
a
couple
of
so,
if
I
understand
correctly,
there's
a
bunch
of
different
types
of
limits
and
each
one
of
those
limits
have
you
know
configurations
for
them.
Yeah
we
need
to
determine
which
of
the
limits
are
useful
to
us,
and
what
are
the
you
know?
How
high
do
we
want
to
set
them
for
low
right.
J
Right
so,
and
initially
like
just
historically
with
esio
like
when
we
launched
a
version
one
of
the
software,
we
set
all
the
limits,
extremely
conservative
right
because
we
weren't
sure
right.
We,
we
just
didn't
know
what
was
going
to
happen,
and
so
you
know
over
time.
Some
of
those
limits
have
been
loosened
and-
and
this
provides
us
the
ability
to
loosen
some
more
of
those
and
again
the
example
of
like
inline
action
depth.
It's
like
in
my
mind.
It's
it
it's!
J
E
G
I
E
That's
what
jungle
always
was.
I
mean
there
were
many
a
times.
Nobody
could
function
on
jungle
because
it
was
just
so
congested
or
whatever,
but
you
needed
a
kylin
which
was
more
all
right.
This
seems
to
be
more
where
we
might
find
a
sweet
spot,
but
obviously
it's
a
little
more
difficult,
but
I
mean
it's
also,
I
think
another
level
of
that's
more
unique
per
each
chain.
I
mean
you
can
fundamentally
decide
what
the
defaults
are,
but
it's
configurable
via
an
m-sig
seems
to
be
working.
E
E
A
A
E
H
With
those
inline
actions
is,
what's
the
actual
limit
like
what
is
the
before
you
brick,
the
chain
type
of
thing
right
so
like?
Is
there
a
limit
in
wasm
where
we
cannot
surpass
x,
parameter
because,
right
now,
like
the
chain
is
working?
Fine,
you
know,
if,
obviously,
if
we
could
increase
those
those
inline
action,
we
could,
but
it's
only
for
those
really
niche
contracts,
but
they're
they're,
more
and
more
of
those
niche
contracts
coming
up.
But
where
is
the
limit
of
where
we
break
the
chain
in
terms
of
like?
H
H
B
So
so
the
wasm
so
like
the
way
the
inline
actions
work
is
that
it
doesn't
kind
of
they're
not
really
in
line
right
like
just
the
bad
naming
of
inline
actions.
Is
it
doesn't
really
use
the
same
wasm
context,
so
it
blows
away
that
laws
of
content.
It's
just
effectively
running
the
actions
at
the
end
of
the
call.
B
H
So
the
second,
the
second
limit
is,
is
the
history
providers,
grey
mass
diffuse,
because
I
know
like
sometimes
when
we
had
like
these
sort
of
like
crazy
abnormal
things
in
the
history
providers,
they
weren't
able
to
process
it
because
of
their
limitations.
So
it's
if
there's
no
limit
on
the
wasm
itself
like
it
can
execute.
Then
it's
figuring
out.
Well.
If
we
do
push
like
50
50
inline
transactions
like
cascading,
do
we
now
hit
the
history
providers
and
then
we
break
history
providers
correct.
H
My
hyperion,
so
maybe
it's
just
a
limit
with
you
know
what
what
is
the
breaking
limit
to
history
providers?
I
don't
know
but
currently
right
now.
The
current
limits
that
are
on
chain
are
pretty
reasonable
for
most
developers
like
99.5
and
then
there's
that
point
five
percent
of
the
developers
that
want
to
cascade
nine
contracts
together,
like
myself,
like
I've,
hit
the
limits,
but
I'm
like
whatever
I'll
just
figure
it
out
I'll
just
remove
actions
right
and
that's
usually
what
most
developers
end
up
doing.
G
G
H
A
Okay,
so
let's
let's
call
the
scope
there.
We
won't
be
going
in
depth
and
testing
the
various
configurations
for
inline
actions
for
the
sake
of
mandela.
It's
something
we
can
do
separately.
If
we
like,
we,
it
looks
like
we're
pretty
aligned
on
wanting
to
upgrade
all
the
3.1
features.
That
forward
set
code
is
a
feature
that
already
exists
that
maybe
we
would
want
to
activate.
So
we
should
test
that
on
jungle
and
and
kylan
when
it
comes
to
testing
the
activation.
G
Anything
else
that
I
missed
well,
I
guess
my
the
only
caveat
I
put
with
ford
set
code.
Is
it's
been
there
for
three
years
and
it
has
not
been
activated?
Is
anybody
requesting
that
function
or
that
feature?
If
no,
that
may
be
the
legacy,
one
that
never
gets
turned
on
and
going
forward?
Like
kevin
said
we
shouldn't
be
building
functions
that
we
don't
need,
and
so
every
single
new
function
going
forward
would
be
activated
and
we
would
have
this
legacy
reminder
of
don't
be,
don't
build.
You
don't
intend
on
turning
on.
A
A
B
Yeah,
so
I
mean
so
that
one
that
one
in
particular
is
a
bug
fix
it's
just
a
small
like
it's
not
very
useful
right
like
it's,
it's
it's,
it
doesn't
do
anything
in
particular
for
mainnet.
The
eso
contract
really
doesn't
try
to
forward
set
code
right
now
and
nobody's
asking
for
that
functionality,
and
I
don't
think
we've
ever
really
ran
into
that
problem,
so
it
might
just
end
up
being
one
of
the
ones.
That's
never
turned
on
at
that
point.
A
B
B
G
G
B
B
A
G
A
B
B
J
A
All
right
I'll
send
out
a
recap
in
a
bit
action
for,
for
me,
I'll
I'll
start,
seeing
what
we
can
do
about
getting
thailand
in
a
testable
state
and
yeah,
and
if
there's
anything
you
can
do
to
help
their
michael
appreciate
that
I'll
touch
I'll
touch
face
with
you,
offline
and
and
valmo
and
eos
asia,
and
maybe
between
the
four
of
us
we
can.
We
can
get
something
sorted
out
unless
there's
anything
else,
we
can
wrap
it
up
thanks.
Everybody
have
a
good
day.
Thank.