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

Encointer check-migration on polkadot-sdk@1.6.0 bump fails #200

Closed
bkontur opened this issue Feb 26, 2024 · 8 comments
Closed

Encointer check-migration on polkadot-sdk@1.6.0 bump fails #200

bkontur opened this issue Feb 26, 2024 · 8 comments

Comments

@bkontur
Copy link
Contributor

bkontur commented Feb 26, 2024

PR: bkontur#4
Failed job: https://github.com/bkontur/runtimes/actions/runs/8048060879/job/21978599251?pr=4

[2024-02-26T11:28:55Z ERROR runtime::executive] `try_decode_entire_state` failed with 1 errors
[2024-02-26T11:28:55Z ERROR runtime::executive] - 0. error: `ParachainSystem::HostConfiguration` key `0x45323df7cc47150b3930e2666b0aa313c522231880238a0c56021b8744a00743` is undecodable
[2024-02-26T11:28:55Z ERROR runtime] panicked at /home/runner/work/runtimes/runtimes/system-parachains/encointer/src/lib.rs:952:65:
    called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: Other("`try_decode_entire_state` failed")

Actual Encoiner parachain_system::HostConfiguration (V5 version):

parachainSystem.hostConfiguration: Option<PolkadotPrimitivesV5AbridgedHostConfiguration>

{
  maxCodeSize: 3,145,728
  maxHeadDataSize: 20,480
  maxUpwardQueueCount: 699,050
  maxUpwardQueueSize: 4,194,304
  maxUpwardMessageSize: 65,531
  maxUpwardMessageNumPerCandidate: 128
  hrmpMaxMessageNumPerCandidate: 10
  validationUpgradeCooldown: 3,600
  validationUpgradeDelay: 600
}

Other parachains live, using v6, e.g,. Polkadot AssetHub:

parachainSystem.hostConfiguration: Option<PolkadotPrimitivesV6AbridgedHostConfiguration>

{
  maxCodeSize: 3,145,728
  maxHeadDataSize: 20,480
  maxUpwardQueueCount: 174,762
  maxUpwardQueueSize: 1,048,576
  maxUpwardMessageSize: 65,531
  maxUpwardMessageNumPerCandidate: 16
  hrmpMaxMessageNumPerCandidate: 10
  validationUpgradeCooldown: 14,400
  validationUpgradeDelay: 600
  asyncBackingParams: {
    maxCandidateDepth: 0
    allowedAncestryLen: 0
  }
}
@bkontur
Copy link
Contributor Author

bkontur commented Feb 26, 2024

@ggwpez @liamaharon any ideas? Missing some older migration? My guess is that asyncBackingParams causes that problem, wdyt?

@bkontur
Copy link
Contributor Author

bkontur commented Feb 26, 2024

cc: @brenzi

@brenzi
Copy link
Contributor

brenzi commented Feb 26, 2024

my guess is this can be safely ignored because that storage is written to upon every block: See @bkchr 's answer here
https://substrate.stackexchange.com/questions/10986/runtime-upgrade-for-parachainsystemhostconfiguration

@bkontur
Copy link
Contributor Author

bkontur commented Feb 26, 2024

Ok, cool, thank you. Anyway, to write that kind of migration should be easy.

So if we are ok, that the pipeline for Encointer check-migrations won't work for main or release tag until enacted, then we can close this and merge bkontur#4 to the 1.6.0 bump.

@brenzi
Copy link
Contributor

brenzi commented Feb 26, 2024

As the error is out of our scope and well-understood, I think we can safely be ok with that without wasting time on a migration (even if simple)

@bkontur
Copy link
Contributor Author

bkontur commented Feb 26, 2024

ok, closing, at least we know about this issue.

@ggwpez
Copy link
Member

ggwpez commented Feb 26, 2024

There is actually also a warning being printed:
WARN runtime::fix::scheduler::migration] skipping v0 to v4 migration: executed on wrong storage version.Expected version < 3, found StorageVersion(4)

Is this expected @brenzi ? eg https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/actions/runs/8051812338/job/21990579726?pr=159

@ggwpez ggwpez reopened this Feb 26, 2024
@brenzi
Copy link
Contributor

brenzi commented Feb 27, 2024

We introduced a hack to fix uninitialized storage versions. now that the sdk takes care of that with 1.6.0, that would no longer be necessary. Doesn't hurt though and all migrations can be removed after the next upgrade anyway. I'd vouch for ignoring this warning

@ggwpez ggwpez closed this as completed Feb 28, 2024
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants