Standalone to consumer changeover - staking functionalities #794
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…nsumer chain upgrade height
…o jstr/onchain_upgrade_to_consumer_chain_840
…merge conflict fix issue
Co-authored-by: yaruwangway <[email protected]>
shaspitz
requested review from
jtremback,
mpoke,
sainoe,
MSalopek,
mmulji-ic,
glnro and
yaruwangway
as code owners
12 tasks
mpoke
approved these changes
Apr 11, 2023
glnro
reviewed
Apr 13, 2023
| @@ -427,7 +427,7 @@ func New( | |||
| authtypes.FeeCollectorName, | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| // Setting the staking keeper is only needed for standalone to consumer changeover chains | |||
| // Setting the standalone staking keeper is only needed for standalone to consumer changeover chains | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nomenclature is strange to me, why not just refer to it as Sovereign to Consumer? Or is there a precedent that was decided already for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea there is a precedent here: #757 (comment). "Sovereign" could make it seem like consumers have no sovereignty
glnro
reviewed
Apr 13, 2023
tests/integration/slashing.go
Outdated
Comment on lines
687
to
691
| suite.consumerChain.NextBlock() | ||
| suite.consumerChain.NextBlock() | ||
| suite.consumerChain.NextBlock() | ||
| suite.consumerChain.NextBlock() | ||
| suite.consumerChain.NextBlock() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just iterate here or write a function to pass time?
func (suite *CCVTestSuite) produceEmptyBlocks(blocks int){
for blocks > 0 {
suite.consumerChain.NextBlock()
blocks--
}
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
"empty blocks" is kind of true since no txs are submitted. But when we do something like this it's usually a sanity check that beginblock/endblock do or do not trigger some code. Reasoning is usually a case by case basis
For loop makes sense tho cb9a1ec
sainoe
reviewed
Apr 14, 2023
sainoe
reviewed
Apr 14, 2023
sainoe
approved these changes
Apr 14, 2023
Co-authored-by: Simon Noetzlin <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Simon Noetzlin <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Description
Implements the decisions about how the main staking methods should be handled for a chain going through a standalone to consumer changeover.
Linked issues
Closes: #781
Epic: #756
Type of change
If you've checked more than one of the first three boxes, consider splitting this PR into multiple PRs!
Feature: Changes and/or adds code behavior, irrelevant to bug fixesFix: Changes and/or adds code behavior, specifically to fix a bugRefactor: Changes existing code style, naming, structure, etc.Testing: Adds testingDocs: Adds documentationRegression tests
Tests added in
validators_test.go, integration test added inslashing.goNew behavior tests
Behavior of normal consumer and normal democracy consumer shouldn't be affected
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: