-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 625
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
Remove solo machine deprecated fields #2761
Changes from all commits
ea52a04
d00dbb5
b244874
d7d0362
dfe69ab
5a9f72a
157736d
9a36981
025f7c3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -16,9 +16,6 @@ message ClientState { | |
// frozen sequence of the solo machine | ||
bool is_frozen = 2 [(gogoproto.moretags) = "yaml:\"is_frozen\""]; | ||
ConsensusState consensus_state = 3 [(gogoproto.moretags) = "yaml:\"consensus_state\""]; | ||
// when set to true, will allow governance to update a solo machine client. | ||
// The client will be unfrozen if it is frozen. | ||
bool allow_update_after_proposal = 4 [(gogoproto.moretags) = "yaml:\"allow_update_after_proposal\""]; | ||
} | ||
|
||
// ConsensusState defines a solo machine consensus state. The sequence of a | ||
|
@@ -51,11 +48,9 @@ message Header { | |
message Misbehaviour { | ||
option (gogoproto.goproto_getters) = false; | ||
|
||
// ClientID is deprecated | ||
string client_id = 1 [deprecated = true, (gogoproto.moretags) = "yaml:\"client_id\""]; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It may be useful to https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#reserved There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Make sense to me. Would this still be a concern if we shifted all the field numbers? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. is this the usage you had in mind @damiannolan
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. hmm, perhaps we should just shift all the field numbers considering its going to be API breaking anyways and require migrations. I think its probably safe to shift them then. Any thoughts or reservations on doing that? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think it should be fine. I don't see any security considerations since this is for providing misbehavior and it isn't stored within the state machine (no internal migrations are actually needed for this type) |
||
uint64 sequence = 2; | ||
SignatureAndData signature_one = 3 [(gogoproto.moretags) = "yaml:\"signature_one\""]; | ||
SignatureAndData signature_two = 4 [(gogoproto.moretags) = "yaml:\"signature_two\""]; | ||
uint64 sequence = 1; | ||
SignatureAndData signature_one = 2 [(gogoproto.moretags) = "yaml:\"signature_one\""]; | ||
SignatureAndData signature_two = 3 [(gogoproto.moretags) = "yaml:\"signature_two\""]; | ||
} | ||
|
||
// SignatureAndData contains a signature and the data signed over to create that | ||
|
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.
ditto
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.
Is this still possible since the package version changed and this was the last field? I think if it is attempted to be used, the codec would fail on an unknown field?