You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Same as #1308, but it should be applied to the proposal handling in 02-client here
Same switch can be used:
switch {
caseclienttypes.IsRevisionFormat(cs.ChainID):
// check that the base of the cs.ChainID == base of upgradedClientState.ChainIDoldChainIDBase:=strings.TrimSuffix(chainID, fmt.Sprintf("-%d", clienttypes.ParseChainID(chainID)))
newChainIDBase:=chainID=strings.TrimSuffix(upgradedClientState.ChainID, fmt.Sprintf("-%d", clienttypes.ParseChainID(upgradedClientState.ChainID)))
ifoldChainIDBase!=newChainIDBase {
returnerr
}
casecs.ChainID!= upgradedClientState.ChainID// only allow upgrade from non-revision chainID to a chainID with "-0"ifupgradedClientState.ChainID!=clienttypes.SetRevisionNumber(cs.ChainID, 0) {
returnerr
}
}
For Admin Use
Not duplicate issue
Appropriate labels applied
Appropriate contributors tagged/assigned
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Despite this comment we can still implement this proposed change. This will prevent chains from accidentally losing misbehaviour detection support. They will need to explicitly overwrite this functionality
after discussion with @colin-axner, we decided the best way forward for this issue is to close it for now.
the reasoning is because the implementation of this issue would basically cause an upgrade to fail if the revision format was not in the expected format. this is important because misbehaviour detection support will be disabled if a chain does not have conformant revision formats. however, the upgrade would fail only AFTER a proposal has passed, as this handler is run only after the passing of the proposal, which is bad UX. therefore, the issue should only be implemented alongside a complete documentation work packet of this aspect of 02 client.
in addition, the implementation of this issue would require casting the client to the Tendermint type, which would need to be updated with Tendermint v2. while this is possible in the short term, in combination with the UX issue mentioned above we decided it was best to postpone this for now until we can flesh out the entire work packet.
Summary
Same as #1308, but it should be applied to the proposal handling in 02-client here
Same switch can be used:
For Admin Use
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: