Remove x/zoneconcierge module
#55
Conversation
| StoreUpgrades: store.StoreUpgrades{}, | ||
| // Upgrade necessary for deletions of `zoneconcierge` | ||
| StoreUpgrades: store.StoreUpgrades{ | ||
| Deleted: []string{ZoneConciergeStoreKey}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have we ever tested if adding this store back to another upgrade with the same key works?
Asking this, because I never saw to delete a module to add it back later and not sure of the implications that might have
Also, the worst case would be when adding it back with a different naming than zoneconcierge
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tbh later I would re-add it with different key, even zoneconcierge1 would be fine just to avoid thinking about this case 😅
KonradStaniec
force-pushed
the
konradstaniec/remove-zoneconcierge
branch
from
f9adc3b to
e904746
Compare
KonradStaniec
force-pushed
the
konradstaniec/remove-zoneconcierge
branch
from
e51cf1a to
691199f
Compare
KonradStaniec
changed the title
x/zoneconcierge module
KonradStaniec
requested review from
gitferry,
RafilxTenfen,
SebastianElvis and
a team
and removed request for
a team
| @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ The format is based on [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/) | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Unreleased | |||
|
|
|||
| * [#55](https://github.com/babylonlabs-io/babylon/pull/55) Remove `x/zoneconcierge` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs to be marked as consensus breaking
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what do you think about removing this e2e test completely? it's not a part of user stories for phase-2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tbh I am leaning to leaving it as:
- it test finalization of several epochs by
FinalizeSealedEpochsinTest4GenerateAndWithdrawRewardtest - tests that out cosmowasm custom queries work as expected in
Test5Wasm - tests rewards for vigilantes in
Test6InterceptFeeCollector(though this will probably change when tokenomics story lands)
just a show case of changes necessary to remove zoneconciege module