Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Add Rococo People <> Rococo Bulletin bridge support to Rococo Bridge …
…Hub (#2540) This PR adds [Rococo People](#2281) <> [Rococo Bulletin](https://github.com/zdave-parity/polkadot-bulletin-chain) to the Rococo Bridge Hub code. There's a couple of things left to do here: - [x] add remaining tests - it'd need some refactoring in the `bridge-hub-test-utils` - will do in a separate PR; - [x] actually run benchmarks for new messaging pallet (do we have bot nowadays?). The reason why I'm opening it before this ^^^ is ready, is that I'd like to hear others opinion on how to deal with hacks with that bridge. Initially I was assuming that Rococo Bulletin will be the 1:1 copy of the Polkadot Bulletin (to avoid maintaining multiple runtimes/releases/...), so you can see many `PolkadotBulletin` mentions in this PR, even though we are going to bridge with the parallel chain (`RococoBulletin`). That's because e.g. pallet names from `construct_runtime` are affecting runtime storage keys and bridges are using runtime storage proofs => it is important to use names that the Bulletin chain expects. But in the end, this hack won't work - we can't use Polkadot Bulletin runtime to bridge with Rococo Bridge Hub, because Polkadot Bulletin expects Polkadot Bridge hub to use `1002` parachain id and Rococo Bridge Hub seats on the `1013`. This also affects storage keys using in bridging, so I had to add the [`rococo` feature](https://github.com/svyatonik/polkadot-bulletin-chain/blob/add-bridge-pallets/runtime/Cargo.toml#L198) to the Bulletin chain. So now we can actually alter its runtime and adapt it for Rococo. So the question here is - what's better for us here - to leave everything as is (seems hacky and non-trivial); - change Bulletin chain runtime when `rococo` feature is used - e.g. use proper names there (`WithPolkadotGrandpa` -> `WithRococoGrandpa`, ...) - add another set of pallets to the Bulletin chain runtime to bridge with Rococo and never use them in production. Similar to hack that we had in Rococo/Wococo cc @acatangiu @bkontur @serban300 also cc @joepetrowski as the main "client" of this bridge --- A couple words on how this bridge is different from the Rococo <> Westend bridge: - it is a bridge with a chain that uses GRANDPA finality, not the parachain finality (hence the tests needs to be changed); - it is a fee-free bridge. So `AllowExplicitUnpaidExecutionFrom<Equals<SiblingPeople>>` + we are not paying any rewards to relayers (apart from compensating transaction costs). --------- Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Signed-off-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io> Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Andrei Sandu <54316454+sandreim@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Egor_P <egor@parity.io> Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
- Loading branch information