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

fix: update vesting message server to handle base accounts correctly (backport: #12190) #12299

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

mmsqe
Copy link
Contributor

@mmsqe mmsqe commented Jun 18, 2022

Description

Closes: #XXXX


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...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

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...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

@mmsqe mmsqe changed the title fix: vesting base fix (backport: #12190) fix: update vesting message server to handle base accounts correctly (backport: #12190) Jun 18, 2022
@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

seems @alexanderbez mentioned this being state breaking: #12190 (comment), is there any reason you think otherwise?

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I do not feel comfortable backporting this given we're modifying a message handler which is state-machine breaking. We're changing API calls here. Concerns I have:

  • Gas costs could differ
  • Underlying accounts can be different

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants