Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore: new flag export only header bytes #13

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Aug 5, 2024

Conversation

RafilxTenfen
Copy link
Contributor

@RafilxTenfen RafilxTenfen commented Aug 2, 2024

Created new structure to avoid exporting params: [] empty as it was before by using the bbnbtclightclienttypes.GenState as before

Add new flag with-height to btc-headers command

@gitferry
Copy link
Member

gitferry commented Aug 2, 2024

From babylonlabs-io/babylon#4, I understand that we do not want work in the output right? Why not just remove it other than have a flag?

@RafilxTenfen
Copy link
Contributor Author

integration tests pass locally

@RafilxTenfen
Copy link
Contributor Author

From babylonlabs-io/babylon#4, I understand that we do not want work in the output right? Why not just remove it other than have a flag?

Well, I thought since it was already done I left the option to export all fields and we could use to confirm some values if needed, but if you prefer to remove it I can remove it entirely @gitferry

Copy link
Member

@gitferry gitferry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's remove work entirely as the calculation should be done in Babylon side. We can also remove hash as this can be obtained from the bytes. This leaves height and bytes. If we want to keep the option of having height, maybe we can have a flag called with-height other than only-header-bytes. This way, for preparing upgrade, we don't need to specify any flag

Copy link
Member

@gitferry gitferry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code-wise lgtm, not sure why e2e failed though

@gitferry
Copy link
Member

gitferry commented Aug 5, 2024

CI fixed in #14

@RafilxTenfen RafilxTenfen merged commit 45bc54c into dev Aug 5, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants