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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Efficient Consensus State Iteration #125
Efficient Consensus State Iteration #125
Changes from 8 commits
aca247f
24e870c
5600cb1
3f5fe15
8b9dff1
b5e29f3
97e0b30
ce002c4
317bb64
30758d0
c0f9513
fb33637
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.
could we de-duplicate this?
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.
these errors are also missing codecov, but I believe de duplicating logic from the existing
GetConsensusState
function could allow reusal of that test to ensure codecovThere 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.
I think maybe we should wrap this error with some message that says "please open an issue". I wouldn't want a relayer to get this issue trying to debug it since really there'd need to be something really wrong
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.
Hmm should I just log and ignore the issue. If this is caught in wild, it would suck that no updates can happen because clientstore can't prune properly. It should still just revert to old updating logic, while we implement a fix since this is a nice-to-have and not critical for IBC functioning
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.
I'm ok with this. How do you plan to log the error?
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.
I could have used logger in context.
I decided against this because logging instead of returning error would make it easy for this to be missed in unit tests. I'd rather just ensure our test coverage makes us confident about this, rather than implementing with mistakes and not catching them until deployment
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.
Sounds like to correct decision to me. There is something severely wrong if this error occurs
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.
This will fetch earliest consensus state, we can implement pruning now without breaking changes.
Can similarly test for monotonic time as well