feat!: move evidence back to Tendermint block #897
Merged
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
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
evan-forbes
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGMT, we might need a tag for super-mega-breaking.
This looks like it was resolved after accounting for the varint plus ceasing to double the data, no?
This may be resolved by updating the calculation used to determine maxDataBytes.
It's also possible the proxy app in the test isn't respecting the maxDataBytes param.
Agreed. I just created and added the label "proto breaking". I infer that a celestia-app release with this change won't be compatible with existing testnets so we may need a strategy meeting on how to upgrade all testnets after we cut a celestia-app release with this change. |
This was referenced Dec 12, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes: #894
The CI check proto-breakage is expected to fail (here) because this PR makes breaking changes to the protobuf definitions.