-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 129
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
New branch sdk47 #817
New branch sdk47 #817
Conversation
hey, cool! so, this is improving I think. |
@sontrinh16 can you please add the removal of the third_party folder to the description? |
@sontrinh16 please stop making general PRs, they need to be focused on solving one or a limited amount of things at once. This is very hard to get reviewed and consume more time than you may expect. The work on upgrading the consumer CCV module to SDK v0.47 is tracked in this issue #852. As this upgrade entails a lot of changes that may impact multiple teams, it will be coordinated by the core ICS team. For contributing to this work, please participate in discussions in the open issue. |
This pr is valid, it contains the things needed to upgrade this repository as the issue explains. If you are asking for the work to be split across a few prs, which it seems based off the comment then lets document this. Contributors are crucial to our ecosystem and closing valid prs doesnt seem like you want people to work on this repo or issue, if this is the case then it should be said that this issue will or should be handled by the team. Notional has updated a few repositories to 0.47 from my knowledge so its worth taking some advice or help from them |
@@ -1,20 +0,0 @@ | |||
name: gosec |
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.
Why is this being deleted?
@@ -3,23 +3,3 @@ sidebar_position: 2 | |||
--- | |||
|
|||
# Consumer Chain Governance | |||
|
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.
Why is this being deleted?
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ consumerd tendermint show-validator # {"@type":"/cosmos.crypto.ed25519.PubKey"," | |||
Then, make an `assign-consensus-key` transaction on the provider chain in order to inform the provider chain about the consensus key you will be using for a specific consumer chain. | |||
|
|||
``` | |||
gaiad tx provider assign-consensus-key <consumer-chain-id> '<pubkey>' --from <tx-signer> --home <home_dir> --gas 900000 -b block -y -o json | |||
gaiad tx provider assign-consensus-key <consumer-chain-id> '<pubkey>' --from <tx-signer> --home <home_dir> --gas 900000 -b sync -y -o json |
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.
Oh, did they change the flag in 47?
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.
github.com/spf13/cast v1.5.0 | ||
github.com/spf13/cobra v1.7.0 | ||
github.com/spf13/cobra v1.6.1 |
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.
Why the downgrade?
github.com/gogo/protobuf => github.com/regen-network/protobuf v1.3.3-alpha.regen.1 | ||
github.com/tendermint/tendermint => github.com/cometbft/cometbft v0.34.27 | ||
google.golang.org/grpc => google.golang.org/grpc v1.33.2 | ||
github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk => github.com/notional-labs/cosmos-sdk v0.47.2-0.20230414131805-781d3665d7a0 |
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're going to need to get these into mainline SDK. Can you link your PR on SDK?
github.com/tendermint/tendermint => github.com/cometbft/cometbft v0.34.27 | ||
google.golang.org/grpc => google.golang.org/grpc v1.33.2 | ||
github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk => github.com/notional-labs/cosmos-sdk v0.47.2-0.20230414131805-781d3665d7a0 | ||
github.com/cosmos/ibc-go/v7 => github.com/notional-labs/ibc-go/v7 v7.0.0-rc0.0.20230417042817-8072b1e9aabc |
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.
Same. Can you link your PR on IBC?
@@ -38,7 +39,7 @@ func (am AppModule) OnChanOpenInit( | |||
|
|||
// ensure provider channel hasn't already been created | |||
if providerChannel, ok := am.keeper.GetProviderChannel(ctx); ok { | |||
return "", sdkerrors.Wrapf(types.ErrDuplicateChannel, | |||
return "", errorsmod.Wrapf(types.ErrDuplicateChannel, |
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.
What is this change for?
counterparty channeltypes.Counterparty, | ||
counterpartyVersion string, | ||
func (AppModule) OnChanOpenTry( | ||
_ sdk.Context, |
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.
Please put formatting changes in a separate PR. We merged Notional's linting and formatting PRs a couple weeks ago. Why wasn't this changed then?
SourcePort: transfertypes.PortID, // packet destination port is now the source | ||
SourceChannel: ch, // packet destination channel is now the source | ||
Token: token, // balance of the coin | ||
Sender: tstProviderAddr.String(), // recipient is the address in the Evmos chain |
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.
These comments look wrong
@@ -211,7 +213,7 @@ func (k Keeper) GetEstimatedNextFeeDistribution(ctx sdk.Context) types.NextFeeDi | |||
totalTokens := sdk.NewDecCoinsFromCoins(total...) | |||
// truncated decimals are implicitly added to provider | |||
consumerTokens, _ := totalTokens.MulDec(frac).TruncateDecimal() | |||
providerTokens := total.Sub(consumerTokens) | |||
providerTokens := total.Sub(consumerTokens[0]) |
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.
What does this do?
return "", false | ||
} | ||
return string(channelIdBytes), true | ||
return string(channelIDBytes), true |
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.
Why wasn't this changed in the formatting and linting PRs from Notional that we merged a few weeks ago? Shouldn't be in this PR.
@@ -25,7 +26,7 @@ func TestApplyCCValidatorChanges(t *testing.T) { | |||
// utility functions | |||
getCCVals := func() (vals []types.CrossChainValidator) { | |||
vals = consumerKeeper.GetAllCCValidator(ctx) | |||
return | |||
return vals |
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.
No formatting in this PR please
Sorry sir it's been closed thank you for being the only informal team member to give actionable feedback. We will start from main. |
We're happy to take advice/help from contributors. In order for us to accept contributions, we need contributors to follow our contributing guidelines (see CONTRIBUTING.md in the root of the repo). The reason for this is, while others may submit these pull requests, our team is ultimately responsible for maintaining the code that gets merged and eventually released, meaning that our team needs as much context as possible on the nature of all of the changes being merged. As such, for large/complex changes, we absolutely require up-front discussion in issues/GitHub discussions. In some cases, like this change, it would be preferable to even have synchronous design sessions to socialize a collective understanding of the nature of incoming changes prior to the work even starting. Then, when large changes are submitted, we need those changes to be easy for our team to review. This means that changes either need to be submitted in multiple small PRs (300-500 lines per PR max) that build on top of one another, or that large PRs need to be structured such that they can be reviewed commit by commit (300-500 lines per commit max), with each commit performing a single logical task. And finally, if someone from our team is assigned to a particular issue, we will most likely opt to not accept unsolicited PRs that attempt to address those same issues. As a general rule, if someone else is assigned to an issue and you would like to take it over, please reach out to that person and ask whether you can either collaborate with them on it or take it over. We're of course open to collaborating in future, but future collaboration needs to be mindful of the above. |
Folks, let me make very clear please, and as politely as possible, you don't own this repository, you work on it. You repeatedly told us that changes to the SDK would not be necessary. We have attempted to get engaged in slack and the like, we have attempted to set up more routine calls with you, we have changed the staffing of this work to attempt to better cater to the needs of informal systems, but the reality is you just keep doing it, and you know, it's really a very perfect scenario for you guys to keep lifting our work over and over and over and over and over again for you to ask us to do the work, have the whole ecosystem. Very excited about getting 47 on ICS, and then simply say that you won't merge it. Here is where we can have discussions in public: https://t.me/+cDuEIPMPBXVkNDU1 and of course if you choose not to join well, that should tell the public some stuff, and if you try to say that you're responsive and slack but you're not, I'll publish that as well because the community deserves transparency. The community should know that you have laid sole claim to this repository. Now please keep in mind that that governance server is tightly moderated. No one is going to harass you or do nasty stuff there like the previous ones, and if they do they magically disappear. I am not trying to be nasty here, I am attempting to tell you what is necessary to actually do multi-stakeholder work. |
Closes: #852
Description
-remove the third_party folder
-Using sdk47, ibc-go v7
-Switch to forked vesion for ibc-go to bypass the passing of pointer to empty struct in IBCKeeper.NewKeeper
-Switch to forked vesion for sdk47 to bypass valset check when init chain for consumer app, modify expected Slash func parameters in stakingkeeper interface so consumer app can use is consumerkeeper as a stakingkeeper
Type of change
If you've checked more than one of the first three boxes, consider splitting this PR into multiple PRs!
Versioning Implications
If the above box is checked, which version should be bumped?
MAJOR
: Consensus breaking changes to both the provider and consumers(s), including updates/breaking changes to IBC communication between provider and consumer(s)MINOR
: Consensus breaking changes which affect either only the provider or only the consumer(s)PATCH
: Non consensus breaking changesTargeting
Please select one of the following: