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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
feat: add rpc
VerifyMembershipProof
- querier approach for conditional clients #5821feat: add rpc
VerifyMembershipProof
- querier approach for conditional clients #5821Changes from 19 commits
7388af9
18e5404
1f720b6
37435a6
2569bd4
06d2f59
a2fc9a7
a2f139d
9cc6cdc
b72e541
c19d6ed
889be6e
7ef470e
e64af3a
da3b02e
143d7c9
1ecb660
83fbeec
8396c1c
294bacf
41b6e5c
00f59e8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
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.
Should we document this addition and the fact that there is going to be a set of default allowed queries made available to the querier? Maybe in the 08-wasm docs?
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.
#5846
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 think we should error if the client type is solo machine?
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.
localhost as well?
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.
do we also want to error if the client is not active, i.e.
k.GetClientStatus(cachedCtx, clientState, req.ClientId) != exported.Active
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 would involve adding solomachine types as a concrete dependency in 02-client which I think is currently not the case, (it is already with localhost though).
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.
Why would we error if it is solomachine client type? State changes are discarded so no sequence incrementing will happen. Shouldn't it be fine to let it go through, just sig verify on whatever bytes? Is it that solomachine is only signing one particular set of bytes for a one sequence? i.e. you will be able to verify for example, a channel end signed at sequence x? so in theory the
VerifyMembership
query is only available for proof one value at a particular point in time. Does that make sense?Yeah, if you query a chain for a proof and have access to an rpc for a header to get the app hash then you should be able to verify off chain and it would be spammy(?) I guess to allow a query to go through like that. Fee like there's no reason to allow it.
Solomachine client type is in
exported
afaik.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.
Created this issue: #5848
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.
solomachine client type is a string, it can be duplicated
yes it is.
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 think proof height is allowed to be empty? (for localhost?)
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.
if we disable localhost then we should be sweet? :)
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.
if we ever add a mock client, I think this would be a good test case we could use it on. I think it is nice to be testing the state change in 02-client rather than 08-wasm, but it is fine for now