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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

refactor: Fix RefundFeesOnChannel #1244

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Apr 13, 2022
Merged

refactor: Fix RefundFeesOnChannel #1244

merged 16 commits into from
Apr 13, 2022

Conversation

colin-axner
Copy link
Contributor

@colin-axner colin-axner commented Apr 11, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Description

read #1060

closes: #860
closes: #780

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

  • Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
  • Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
  • Code follows the module structure standards.
  • Wrote unit and integration tests
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
  • Added relevant godoc comments.
  • Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
  • Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

@colin-axner colin-axner marked this pull request as ready for review April 12, 2022 11:57
colin-axner
colin-axner commented Apr 12, 2022
View reviewed changes
modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow.go
// If the escrow account runs out of balance then fee module will become locked as this implies the presence
// of a severe bug. When the fee module is locked, no fee distributions will be performed.
// Please see ADR 004 for more information.
func (k Keeper) RefundFeesOnChannelClosure(ctx sdk.Context, portID, channelID string) error {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm starting to wonder if this function should never return an error. The only place it errors is with regards to the refund address. We could either panic or lock the fee module since this is a bug. If we decide to change it, I think it'd be best to do in a follow up pr

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think its fine for now 👍
Agree on follow up if things change!

@colin-axner colin-axner mentioned this pull request Apr 12, 2022
Closed
9 tasks
damiannolan
damiannolan approved these changes Apr 12, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@damiannolan damiannolan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice work! 🚀

modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow.go
Comment on lines +148 to +149
if k.bankKeeper.BlockedAddr(refundAddr) {
continue
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Clean solution!

modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/keeper.go Outdated
packetFees := k.MustUnmarshalFees(iterator.Value())
if cb(packetFees) {
break
packetId, err := types.ParseKeyFeesInEscrow(string(iterator.Key()))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

mega nit: packetID

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice catch!

modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/keeper_test.go
refundAcc := suite.chainA.SenderAccount.GetAddress()
packetID1 := channeltypes.NewPacketId(suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelConfig.PortID, suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelID, 1)
packetID2 := channeltypes.NewPacketId(suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelConfig.PortID, suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelID, 2)
packetID5 := channeltypes.NewPacketId(suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelConfig.PortID, suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelID, 51)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How come you skipped packetID 3 and 4? :D

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

just to do a little fuzz testing. It isn't necessarily true that all packets on a channel will be incentivized so I figured it didn't hurt to put things out of order a little

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

True, that's a good point!

modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/keeper_test.go Outdated
Comment on lines 138 to 142
fee := types.Fee{
AckFee: defaultAckFee,
RecvFee: defaultReceiveFee,
TimeoutFee: defaultTimeoutFee,
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: could use types.NewFee(defaultRecvFee, defaultAckFee, defaultTimeoutFee)

feel free to ignore

modules/apps/29-fee/ibc_module_test.go Outdated
Comment on lines 337 to 341
fee = types.Fee{
RecvFee: validCoins,
AckFee: validCoins2,
TimeoutFee: validCoins3,
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we rename validCoins to defaultRecvFee..etc, to be consistent with keeper tests?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought about this as well. I think we should, but would prefer to have this be done in a followup since this pr already has a bit of diffs

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, no worries. Sounds good to me :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I decided to do it in this pr

modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/escrow.go
// If the escrow account runs out of balance then fee module will become locked as this implies the presence
// of a severe bug. When the fee module is locked, no fee distributions will be performed.
// Please see ADR 004 for more information.
func (k Keeper) RefundFeesOnChannelClosure(ctx sdk.Context, portID, channelID string) error {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think its fine for now 👍
Agree on follow up if things change!

seantking
seantking approved these changes Apr 13, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@seantking seantking left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice work :)

@mergify mergify bot merged commit e59a6d2 into main Apr 13, 2022
@mergify mergify bot deleted the colin/860-refund-fees-onclosure branch April 13, 2022 09:49
CosmosCar pushed a commit to caelus-labs/ibc-go that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2023
@MSevey
feat: add release trigger for merged PRs with create-release label (c…
969bb6b 
…osmos#1244)

<!--
Please read and fill out this form before submitting your PR.

Please make sure you have reviewed our contributors guide before
submitting your
first PR.
-->

## Overview

This PR updates the release CI to trigger when a PR with the
`create-release` label is merged.

See tested action:
https://github.com/MSevey/workflows/actions/runs/6489995567

<!-- 
Please provide an explanation of the PR, including the appropriate
context,
background, goal, and rationale. If there is an issue with this
information,
please provide a tl;dr and link the issue. 
-->

## Checklist

<!-- 
Please complete the checklist to ensure that the PR is ready to be
reviewed.

IMPORTANT:
PRs should be left in Draft until the below checklist is completed.
-->

- [ ] New and updated code has appropriate documentation
- [ ] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing
- [ ] Required CI checks are passing
- [ ] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or
documentation updates
- [ ] Linked issues closed with keywords
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@damiannolan damiannolan damiannolan approved these changes

@seantking seantking seantking approved these changes

@AdityaSripal AdityaSripal Awaiting requested review from AdityaSripal AdityaSripal is a code owner

@crodriguezvega crodriguezvega Awaiting requested review from crodriguezvega

@charleenfei charleenfei Awaiting requested review from charleenfei

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
automerge
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fix RefundAllFees Unsafe deletion during iteration of ics29 channels in DisableAllChannels
3 participants
@colin-axner @damiannolan @seantking