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

ADR 006: 02-client refactor #1846

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 5, 2022
Merged

Conversation

colin-axner
Copy link
Contributor

@colin-axner colin-axner commented Aug 1, 2022

Description

closes: #1299


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.
  • Wrote unit and integration tests
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
  • Added relevant godoc comments.
  • Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
  • Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

@colin-axner colin-axner mentioned this pull request Aug 1, 2022
9 tasks
@colin-axner colin-axner marked this pull request as ready for review August 2, 2022 11:22
@colin-axner colin-axner requested a review from chatton August 2, 2022 11:22
Copy link
Member

@AdityaSripal AdityaSripal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice work! Just a nit

Copy link
Contributor

@damiannolan damiannolan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome! This is great.

Should we use back-ticked names for function/module references? e.g. 07-tendermint, ClientMessage...etc Don't want to block approval on that nit so feel free to take it or leave it!

Should we also reference ADR 005 - UpdateClient Events - ClientState Consensus Heights as part of this, as we now emit a list of consensus heights?

Copy link
Contributor

@charleenfei charleenfei left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice work! just some small grammatical/spelling errors


### Tendermint non-zero height upgrades

Before the launch of IBC, it was determined that the tendermint go implementation would not be capable of supporting non-zero height upgrades.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
Before the launch of IBC, it was determined that the tendermint go implementation would not be capable of supporting non-zero height upgrades.
Before the launch of IBC, it was determined that the tendermint-go implementation would not be capable of supporting non-zero height upgrades.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

maybe it'd be better if I just linked the repo and put "that the golang implementation of tendermint"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

updated

@colin-axner colin-axner mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2022
9 tasks
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.

Thank you, @colin-axner!

Should we use back-ticked names for function/module references? e.g. 07-tendermint, ClientMessage...etc Don't want to block approval on that nit so feel free to take it or leave it!

I agree with @damiannolan on this, so if you agree, I have added a bunch of suggestions adding the backticks, so that it's easier for you to update.


## Context

During the initial development of the 02-client submodule, each light client supported (06-solomachine, 07-tendermint, 09-localhost) was referenced through hardcoding.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know that this might be difficult or too much work and this is probably due to my lack of knowledge, but I think it would be super useful for a semi-unfamiliar reader if you add maybe some code sample or links to the code with what you mean with the hardcoding and that new light clients would need to be added directly to the 02-client module.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

updated

@colin-axner colin-axner changed the base branch from 02-client-refactor to updated-02-client-refactor August 4, 2022 15:30
@colin-axner colin-axner changed the base branch from updated-02-client-refactor to 02-client-refactor August 4, 2022 15:33
@colin-axner colin-axner force-pushed the colin/1299-02-client-refactor-adr branch from a2d4af4 to 4c060e0 Compare August 4, 2022 15:35
@colin-axner colin-axner changed the base branch from 02-client-refactor to main August 4, 2022 15:35
@colin-axner
Copy link
Contributor Author

colin-axner commented Aug 4, 2022

Going to merge as I believe I've addressed everyone's suggestions

@colin-axner colin-axner enabled auto-merge (squash) August 4, 2022 15:38
@colin-axner colin-axner merged commit 44541b8 into main Aug 5, 2022
@colin-axner colin-axner deleted the colin/1299-02-client-refactor-adr branch August 5, 2022 13:27
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.

ADR for 02-client refactor
5 participants