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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

fix: address unsafe deletion when disabling all fee channels #1024

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

fix: address unsafe deletion when disabling all fee channels #1024

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a0f1405
chore: fix unsafe deletion bug
colin-axner Feb 28, 2022
f609e14
Merge branch 'ics29-fee-middleware' into colin/780-unsafe-iteration-d…
colin-axner Mar 1, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 3 additions & 5 deletions modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/keeper.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -124,12 +124,10 @@ func (k Keeper) GetAllFeeEnabledChannels(ctx sdk.Context) []types.FeeEnabledChan
// In this case, chain developers should investigate the issue, fix it,
// and then re-enable the fee module in a coordinated upgrade.
func (k Keeper) DisableAllChannels(ctx sdk.Context) {
store := ctx.KVStore(k.storeKey)
iterator := sdk.KVStorePrefixIterator(store, []byte(types.FeeEnabledKeyPrefix))
channels := k.GetAllFeeEnabledChannels(ctx)

defer iterator.Close()
for ; iterator.Valid(); iterator.Next() {
store.Delete(iterator.Key())
for _, channel := range channels {
k.DeleteFeeEnabled(ctx, channel.PortId, channel.ChannelId)
Comment on lines +129 to +130
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the point of this PR if we're removing this logic in favor of the lock flag?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I made the pr before I thought of the lock flag

}
}

Expand Down
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/keeper_test.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -97,6 +97,10 @@ func (suite *KeeperTestSuite) TestDisableAllChannels() {
suite.chainA.GetSimApp().IBCFeeKeeper.SetFeeEnabled(suite.chainA.GetContext(), "port2", "channel2")
suite.chainA.GetSimApp().IBCFeeKeeper.SetFeeEnabled(suite.chainA.GetContext(), "port3", "channel3")

suite.Require().True(suite.chainA.GetSimApp().IBCFeeKeeper.IsFeeEnabled(suite.chainA.GetContext(), "port1", "channel1"))
suite.Require().True(suite.chainA.GetSimApp().IBCFeeKeeper.IsFeeEnabled(suite.chainA.GetContext(), "port2", "channel2"))
suite.Require().True(suite.chainA.GetSimApp().IBCFeeKeeper.IsFeeEnabled(suite.chainA.GetContext(), "port3", "channel3"))

suite.chainA.GetSimApp().IBCFeeKeeper.DisableAllChannels(suite.chainA.GetContext())

suite.Require().False(suite.chainA.GetSimApp().IBCFeeKeeper.IsFeeEnabled(suite.chainA.GetContext(), "port1", "channel1"),
Expand Down