-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
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(denommetadata): inject denom metadata to ibc transfers from RA to Hub #455
Conversation
…m-metadata-to-hub
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.
Makes sense I think just a couple things
Not sure about active/inactive as names. Can you think of alternatives? And they need to be documented exactly what each one means.
Also, with errors. Please prefer https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/dymensionxyz/[email protected]/gerrc#pkg-variables now. For example, you can wrap the AlreadyExists one there, instead of defining new ones
Also, please don't call the types. 'middleware' because they don't implement porrtypes middleware. Call them IBCModule or ICS4Wrapper
Final point: please don't implement some kind of canonical channel right now. You should write your code to assume that this is handled by some other component, and we will make an issue to fix that properly
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'm not sure I'm on board with this architecturally.
I think the denom meta data module should just assume there is one hub and keep track of the registered denoms for it by itself
No need for hub keeper
I think I already addressed a similar comment you posted: even though the hub can always be the same, technically it is still possible the hub chain can do a fork, which I believe would make it's chain ID change. See: #465 |
WDYM? Re #465 ok maybe. IDK tbh I would have to research. Seems like a delicate thing. Can you just write this PR so that it assumes that problem is solved by another component. Otherwise you're solving too many problems at once and stuff is likely to get reworked/changed anyways Basically just write your code to have minimal assumptions so that the rest of the codebase can evolve around it independently. Here you're placing quite a lot of assumptions on the management of the hub wrt. forks etc, which is out of scope. |
|
||
func NewTestHubKeeperFromApp(app *app.App) (*hubkeeper.Keeper, sdk.Context) { | ||
k := &app.HubKeeper | ||
ctx := app.BaseApp.NewContext(false, tmproto.Header{Height: 1, ChainID: "rollapp-]1", Time: time.Now().UTC()}) |
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Calling the system time Warning test
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.
great work!
PR Standards
Opening a pull request should be able to meet the following requirements
Closes #454
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow-up issues.
For Author:
godoc
commentsFor Reviewer:
After reviewer approval: