Feat/pallet anchor #436
Feat/pallet anchor #436
Conversation
ivan-cholakov
requested review from
nahuseyoum,
fluorostani and
thadouk
as code owners
Signed-off-by: Ivan Cholakov <icholakov1@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Nahu <39748285+nahuseyoum@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Ivan Cholakov <icholakov1@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: nahuseyoum <nahu.seyoum@aventus.io> Co-authored-by: Nahu <39748285+nahuseyoum@users.noreply.github.com>
ivan-cholakov
force-pushed
the
feat/pallet-anchor
branch
from
e973556
to
45f7c87
Compare
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // #[test] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this test being kept?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be ok to have multiple chain names because the handler and chainId will be different so we can remove this test. But I would prefer to merge as is and then do a separate PR to remove it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why check in, commented out code?
| impl InnerCallValidator for TestAvnProxyConfig { | ||
| type Call = RuntimeCall; | ||
|
|
||
| fn signature_is_valid(call: &Box<Self::Call>) -> bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need Box? Why not just &Self::Call?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the size of Call is unknown (it can be any call to the runtime) and boxing it gives it a known size (the size of the pointer to the heap)
| impl<T: Config> InnerCallValidator for Pallet<T> { | ||
| type Call = <T as Config>::RuntimeCall; | ||
|
|
||
| fn signature_is_valid(call: &Box<Self::Call>) -> bool { |
|
|
||
| pub type ChainId = u32; | ||
| #[derive(Clone, Encode, Decode, PartialEq, RuntimeDebug, TypeInfo, MaxEncodedLen)] | ||
| #[scale_info(skip_type_params(T))] |
|
|
||
| #[pallet::storage] | ||
| #[pallet::getter(fn checkpoints)] | ||
| pub type Checkpoints<T: Config> = StorageDoubleMap< |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is the benefit of having different Nonce/CheckpointID per chain? wouldn't a universal nonce for all checkpoints be simpler?
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // #[test] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why check in, commented out code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
was this intended to check in?
Proposed changes
Functionality for anchoring to the avn chain, encapsulated in a single pallet
Type of change/Merge
🚨What type of change is this PR?
Put an
xin the boxes that applyChecklist
Put an
xin the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR.Further comments