-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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
refactor!: reimplement PreFinalizeBlockHook as PreBlocker #17713
Conversation
4429628
to
7443118
Compare
|
Slightly unrelated, but noticing when fixing conflicts on #17712. |
Co-authored-by: Julien Robert <julien@rbrt.fr>
Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <alexanderbez@users.noreply.github.com>
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
if rsp.ConsensusParamsChanged { | ||
app.finalizeBlockState.ctx = ctx.WithConsensusParams(app.GetConsensusParams(ctx)) | ||
} |
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.
q: Might be a silly one but... Why do we need this, couldn't we just always do it? Or are there cases in which we want to update params but not make those changes available until the next block?
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 only need reload when consensus params get modified in preBlocker
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.
Yeah, but what difference would it make in practice to always reload the consensus params? That way we could discard ResponsePreBlock
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.
Ah, I realize I'm late to the party. This was in the previous PR, and I only thought of this now 🤦
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.
but this is a rare case and should in reality only happen in upgrades
710adfd
to
b6a2b94
Compare
Co-authored-by: Julien Robert <julien@rbrt.fr> Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <alexanderbez@users.noreply.github.com> (cherry picked from commit f99a624) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md # docs/architecture/adr-064-abci-2.0.md
Description
Updates #17421
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
make lint
andmake test
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