-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Versioned Abi #2632
Versioned Abi #2632
Conversation
It is a little difficult. For private networks, it is difficult for them to start the genesis block with the latest version. Maybe it would be easier for us to resynchronize the blocks? |
I think that we will need it, private networks can change the Otherwise why |
Any update? |
/// <summary> | ||
/// When the Method start to be available | ||
/// </summary> | ||
public uint AvailableFromVersion { get; set; } = 0; |
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.
And 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.
We need to send the Attribute
value to the ContractEventDescriptor
in order to know it for filtering
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 need to update the states.
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 is a possibility as well, @shargon. This might help historically processing old functions in a correct manner. |
We need to update the abi with a transaction. I think we need another solution. |
Agree. If we set a height in settings every time when we upgrade, it's too heavy. I checked every tx result and balance after mainnet synced with the latest |
Then we can have failures before this transaction. |
Please check this version |
Closed in favor of #2942 |
Related to #2628 (comment)