Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Allow zero proof height packet recv ack timeout #2781
Allow zero proof height packet recv ack timeout #2781
Changes from 7 commits
c8b18a3
4dea53f
5a437ad
29c008a
b1f2595
ab52d23
e9e371b
33eb551
527f86f
460d237
e525018
2f18bf4
def9454
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
this is correct 👍
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.
this test case was testing the behaviour of
GetTimestampAtHeight
which would error out when!cs.GetLatestHeight().EQ(height)
, which means a zero proof would never be valid.I'm not sure exactly how to go ahead with this test case or if it's still valid. cc @damiannolan @colin-axner
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 can change the behaviour of
GetTimestampAtHeight()
to ignore the passed in height, the timestamp returned should simply be the latest timestamp, thus this test case can be removedThere 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.
I think we should maybe return a
SolomachineConfig
struct from this function which encapsulates the client/connection/channel/port IDs.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 could make use of ibctesting.Endpoint
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.
That would nice!
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.
looking into this now, is looks like the endpoints in all the other tests are constructed using a
suite.chainA
andsuite.chainB
, for this will we need to fully create instances ofibctesting.Endpoint
that are referencingsolomachine
andchainA
?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.
@colin-axner do you think we should do this in this PR or are you happy with a follow up issue? This PR is already pretty big!
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.
I think any change to use endpoint can be made in a followup pr. I would not recommend modifying the testing package to handle solo machine endpoints, I was primarily thinking that you could manually fill in the endpoint with the correct values without supporting the ability to do
suite.coordinator.Setup(path)
. I see the difficulty though since when you callNewEndpoint
you provide quite a bit of information. What do you think about having aNewSolomachineEndpoint
, also very open to just creating a new solomachine endpoint struct which contains less information (if that makes sense). I figure we can always consolidate the two types in the future if there is enough overlapThere 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.
I think a new type may work well here, I will create a follow up issue for this and look into after this is merged into your branch! 👍