PDP: update term names

[jennijuju]

details in FilOzone/synapse-sdk#105 (comment)

What do we need to change in curio PDP to support this?

• contract ABIs when interacting with the contracts
• yugabyte DB names?
• Given all pdp work so far has been experimental, and we have decided to deploy new sets of contract on both calib and mainnet in prep for the production alpha version and make the existing experimental contract read only. question here is do we care about backward compatibility here for PDP SPs? AFAIK we dont have anyone running on mainnet yet, do we care about upgrading existing PDP nodes to the new version, or should we advise PDP SPs just to spin up a new pdp instance and deprecate the old one given some notice?

@LexLuthr would love your guidance here

[TippyFlitsUK]

I’d lean toward recommending SPs spin up fresh PDP instances rather than maintaining backwards compatibility.

It keeps things simpler and avoids the need to support legacy data or schemas that weren’t intended to be permanent.

[LexLuthr]

We were planning to ditch backward compatibility anyway. But, if you plan to support this before #508 lands then, we need to fix this for existing iteration. Otherwise, whatever name you come up with, I can use those in new PDP iteration easily.
We just need to adjust the ABI we have and it is not really more than a couple of hours overall work in #508.

[jennijuju]

We were planning to ditch backward compatibility anyway. But, if you plan to support this before #508 lands then, we need to fix this for existing iteration. Otherwise, whatever name you come up with, I can use those in new PDP iteration easily. We just need to adjust the ABI we have and it is not really more than a couple of hours overall work in #508.

i think this would be an EOM2 thing - which is aligned with mkv2-pdp timeline, right? if that's the case i think we should not spend time on backward compatibility.

[LexLuthr]

Yes. This would end of July. So, no point in fixing existing one.

[rjan90]

Draft PR for these changes are here: #569

[rjan90]

I will close this ticket, given that the term names has been landed in the rename branch, as well as in the MarketsV2-PR.

There is a open question around how to handle the merging of this into the main branch, but I think we can continue on that in: #538