-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
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
fix: update vesting message server to handle base accounts correctly #12190
Conversation
Actually I don't think this can be backported to 0.45 because it's state machine breaking, right? Same would apply for #12154 |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #12190 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 66.15% 66.15%
=======================================
Files 673 673
Lines 71085 71085
=======================================
+ Hits 47024 47025 +1
+ Misses 21418 21417 -1
Partials 2643 2643
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
utACK
} | ||
|
||
baseAccount := authtypes.NewBaseAccountWithAddress(to) | ||
baseAccount = ak.NewAccount(ctx, baseAccount).(*authtypes.BaseAccount) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we ok with not checking if the type cast went ok?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We know that NewBaseAccountWithAddress
will return a &BaseAccount
. I suppose we could add an explicit check :)
I will do that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are a couple more of these, so let's add it to all of them for good measure
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually there is no need to type check. It just creates more boilerplate IMO. We create a concrete BaseAccount and then we pass it to NewAccount
, which just returns what we pass in.
Description
Extends #12154 to apply to all message types.
closes: #12189
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!
to the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.md
Reviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...
!
in the type prefix if API or client breaking change