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.

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

chore: remove GetSignBytes from 29-fee and transfer msgs #4570

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Sep 7, 2023

Conversation

damiannolan
Copy link
Member

Description

Removes GetSignBytes method from msgs in 29-fee and transfer

closes: #3911


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.

  • Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md).
  • Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
  • Code follows the module structure standards and Go style guide.
  • Wrote unit and integration tests.
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/).
  • Added relevant godoc comments.
  • Provide a commit message to be used for the changelog entry in the PR description for review.
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer.
  • Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes.

@damiannolan
Copy link
Member Author

So from the issue its not clear to me exactly what we are doing wrt proto annotations. Should we add (amino.encoding) annotations?

Copy link
Contributor

@colin-axner colin-axner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @damiannolan! It might be nice if we do a manual test with a ledger before final release

Copy link
Contributor

@crodriguezvega crodriguezvega left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🧹

@@ -25,6 +26,7 @@ service Msg {
// ICS20 enabled chains. See ICS Spec here:
// https://github.com/cosmos/ibc/tree/master/spec/app/ics-020-fungible-token-transfer#data-structures
message MsgTransfer {
option (amino.name) = "cosmos-sdk/MsgTransfer";
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As far as I understand, these names are for backwards compatibility and must match that which is used in RegisterConcrete legacy amino cdc.

I'm unsure if any other annotations are required here.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

here is a good example: https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/44e90e061effe955ad52d4b191897bdff41426a8/proto/cosmos/bank/v1beta1/tx.proto#L38-L54

i am working on adding docs on this but bogged down with many things.

on coin you may need to add the extra notations. Id recommmend some golden tests to make sure they arent breaking. If they are breaking then it could break some frontends based on how they are written

Copy link
Member Author

@damiannolan damiannolan Sep 5, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you! docs would be great, but no rush on that! This is great and I can try to do some testing with a ledger.

I saw this usage of legacy_coins alright, but I wasn't sure what exactly this string does, seems kind of magic! is there somewhere in the go which ties things together? I think this will be needed for coins on MsgTransfer, will add that and test things out!

damiannolan and others added 2 commits September 6, 2023 10:20
# Conflicts:
#	modules/apps/29-fee/types/fee.pb.go
#	modules/apps/29-fee/types/tx.pb.go
#	modules/apps/transfer/types/tx.pb.go
@crodriguezvega crodriguezvega merged commit 7be1785 into main Sep 7, 2023
54 checks passed
@crodriguezvega crodriguezvega deleted the damian/3911-rm-sign-bytes branch September 7, 2023 10:26
@damiannolan
Copy link
Member Author

I was planning on testing this PR with a ledger before merging 😅

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove GetSignBytes with Eden upgrade
4 participants