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

Release v0.0.10 #605

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jan 24, 2024
Merged

Release v0.0.10 #605

merged 12 commits into from
Jan 24, 2024

Conversation

HCastano
Copy link
Collaborator

@HCastano HCastano commented Jan 24, 2024

One thing to note here - the pallet_treasury benchmarks fail to run. I've excluded updating them because I don't want to block the release that, but we should follow up with this.

❯ ./target/release/entropy benchmark pallet \
    --chain dev \
    --wasm-execution=compiled \
    --pallet pallet_treasury \
    --extrinsic "*" \
    --steps 5 \
    --repeat 2 \
    --template .maintain/frame-weight-template.hbs \
    --output ./treasury_weights.rs
2024-01-23 20:27:48 [0] 💸 generated 2 npos voters, 2 from validators and 0 nominators
2024-01-23 20:27:48 [0] 💸 generated 2 npos targets
2024-01-23 20:27:49 Starting benchmark: pallet_treasury::spend_local
2024-01-23 20:27:49 WARNING: benchmark weightless skipped - spend_local
2024-01-23 20:27:49 WARNING: benchmark weightless skipped - spend_local
2024-01-23 20:27:49 WARNING: benchmark weightless skipped - spend_local
2024-01-23 20:27:49 Starting benchmark: pallet_treasury::propose_spend
2024-01-23 20:27:49 Starting benchmark: pallet_treasury::reject_proposal
2024-01-23 20:27:49 Starting benchmark: pallet_treasury::approve_proposal
2024-01-23 20:27:49 Starting benchmark: pallet_treasury::remove_approval
2024-01-23 20:27:49 Starting benchmark: pallet_treasury::on_initialize_proposals
2024-01-23 20:27:49 Starting benchmark: pallet_treasury::spend
2024-01-23 20:27:49 WARNING: benchmark weightless skipped - spend
2024-01-23 20:27:49 WARNING: benchmark weightless skipped - spend
2024-01-23 20:27:49 WARNING: benchmark weightless skipped - spend
Error: Input("Benchmark pallet_treasury::payout failed: No origin")
2024-01-23 20:27:49 Starting benchmark: pallet_treasury::payout

Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 24, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
entropy-core ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Jan 24, 2024 3:56am


Finally, users are now able to indicate which hashing algorithm they would like to use during the
signing step. We provide some common ones out of the box, but custom user-provided hashing
algorithms are also supported.

### Breaking Changes
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Jesse and Peg, I removed a couple things in here because while the did break the API between PRs, they didn't break something that existed in v0.0.9.

Copy link
Contributor

@ameba23 ameba23 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💯

assuming updating the treasuring benchmarks later is not going to cause problems (can't see why it would).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It this metadata re-build relating to #598 or is it something to do with doing the benchmarks here?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It has to do with the changes to the spec_version and transaction_version

@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
#!/bin/bash

set -eux
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what does this do?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This adds some extra checks (e.g unbound variables) and printing (e.g values of variables) when running a Bash script.

In this case I was interested in seeing what packages were being used as part of the benchmark array - and it turned out the array was empty!

The output can be a bit annoying, but since we're not running the script that often I think it's alright. I can also remove this from the committed code and just add it locally when needed if anyone complains lol

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ axum ={ version="0.6.18", features=["ws"] }
axum-macros="0.3.7"

# Substrate
subxt ={ package="subxt", git="https://github.com/paritytech/subxt.git", tag="v0.32.1" }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not strictly related to this PR, but if moving from git dependencies to crates.io dependencies is because of wanting to be able to publish to crates.io ourselves: we have hex = "*" here and wildcards like that are not allowed on crates.io. (without wanting to get into the discussion about whether we should publish to crates.io)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

without wanting to get into the discussion about whether we should publish to crates.io

Actually that's a good point. Most packages right now should be in a publishable state. For the TSS server I think the only other thing we need here is for Jake to publish Programs to crates.

We can totally aim to do that for this release.

Wdyt @jakehemmerle @JesseAbram

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Talked to Jake, gonna do this in the next release

Copy link
Member

@JesseAbram JesseAbram left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I may be missing it but I don't think the TSS version is updated

@HCastano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

assuming updating the treasuring benchmarks later is not going to cause problems (can't see why it would).

Right now it's not a problem because we're not really running benchmarks properly anyways. If, for example, we had our reference benchmark machine set up and they failed there - yes that would be a problem.

I may be missing it but I don't think the TSS version is updated

For now I have not been updating the versions of packages which we intend to publish, which include the TSS server version. Once we start publishing on crates then we can bump those

@JesseAbram
Copy link
Member

For now I have not been updating the versions of packages which we intend to publish, which include the TSS server version. Once we start publishing on crates then we can bump those

I don't love it, gonna approve but my argument here is the tss should be fast forwarded and follow the chain versioning since it would be cleaner and would make a lot more sense especially in the changelog. I also don't think we should be changing our behaviour here for crates.

@JesseAbram JesseAbram self-requested a review January 24, 2024 15:29
@HCastano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I don't love it, gonna approve but my argument here is the tss should be fast forwarded and follow the chain versioning since it would be cleaner and would make a lot more sense especially in the changelog. I also don't think we should be changing our behaviour here for crates.

I don't totally disagree with you here, but the release cadence of each could be quite different. We could publish updates to the server which don't affect on-chain interactions, but may have breaking changes to the publicly exposed API for example.

This is worth a longer discussion for sure.

@HCastano HCastano merged commit a9463b0 into master Jan 24, 2024
14 checks passed
@HCastano HCastano deleted the hc/release-v0.0.10 branch January 24, 2024 16:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants