-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 626
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
Move check for upgraded client state height to 02-client layer. #4368
Move check for upgraded client state height to 02-client layer. #4368
Conversation
c153b23
to
4841ad2
Compare
err = suite.chainB.GetSimApp().UpgradeKeeper.SetUpgradedConsensusState(suite.chainB.GetContext(), int64(lastHeight.GetRevisionHeight()), upgradedConsStateBz) | ||
suite.Require().NoError(err) | ||
|
||
// change upgradedClient height to be lower than current client state height |
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.
note that I added a test case here but additionally left the others present in 07-tendermint. (which also need tweaking since they fall victim to the whole not checking error returned and thereby not always checking what they are supposed to)
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4368 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 79.57% 79.57%
=======================================
Files 189 189
Lines 13261 13266 +5
=======================================
+ Hits 10552 10557 +5
Misses 2288 2288
Partials 421 421
|
Thanks for picking this up, @DimitrisJim. Since the check needs to be removed in both 07-tendermint and 08-wasm, I think it would be best to wait until we merge 08-wasm to main and then we can fully address the whole issue in a single PR. What do you think? |
sounds perfectly fine to me, we can leave as is and I'll just rebase when the time is right |
4841ad2
to
a4afd70
Compare
37a08d5
to
4a6d6b4
Compare
4a6d6b4
to
b8b1a90
Compare
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.
Looks fine to me. Happy that we can finally merge this one! :)
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.
LGTM thanks @DimitrisJim
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.
LGTM, the 02-client tests should really be refactored some day, seems like some rearrangement could remove a lot of code cov
Description
closes: #4212,
removing this check in the 08-wasm module is additionally required.(Removed check in 08-wasm module)Commit Message / Changelog Entry
see the guidelines for commit messages. (view raw markdown for examples)
Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.
docs/
) or specification (x/<module>/spec/
).godoc
comments.Files changed
in the Github PR explorer.Codecov Report
in the comment section below once CI passes.