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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat(orchestration): chain NameHub #9323
feat(orchestration): chain NameHub #9323
Changes from 1 commit
9aff733
bb34c13
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
channel 0 goes to the cosmos hub, according to https://mapofzones.com/zones/agoric-3/peers?columnKey=ibcVolumeIn&period=24h
or is this about emerynet or something?
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.
how often do you expect this to get updated?
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.
Pretty frequently, I believe with every block (of the chain with the shorter avg block time).
I recognize this likely makes it a poor candidate to put into state, given our anticipated update frequency/governance, but some messages seem like they rely on it for preventing an unbound timeout:
timeoutHeight
andtimeoutTimestamp
fields (the generated TS types say both are required, but i think it's actually one or the other)height
field used for timing out a packettimeoutHeight
field used for timing out a packetMore on
Height
:For
MsgTransfer
, it seems that we should usetimeoutTimestamp
(absolute) to set the timeout, leaning onTimerService
.For
RequestQuery
andTxBody
, maybe the correct abstraction for now is to ensuretimeoutHeight/height
is always an(invitation|offer)Arg
, and rely on clients for this information.A clever approach might be to approximate timeout height based on a target block duration (of the chain with the shorter avg block times), using using a historical revisionHeight and the timestamp is was saved at. This is likely too clever, and doesn't account for things like chain halting upgrades or target block time drift.
P.S. created #9324 to capture this work, as
TxBody
'srevisionHeight
andRequestQuery
'sheight
default to0n
onmaster