-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 607
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
Integrate Async ICQ #4207
Integrate Async ICQ #4207
Conversation
appKeepers.IBCKeeper.ChannelKeeper, // may be replaced with middleware | ||
appKeepers.IBCKeeper.ChannelKeeper, |
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.
Can we add a comment for what these args are supposed to be? (Confused why theres two)
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.
Passing it twice is common on IBC modules where you want one with the default implementation and one that is being used to actually route packages through (if there's a middleware, you want to route packets through the middleware but may still need access to the default IBC implementation).
In this case, I don't think the second one is being used. So not sure why it's needed. And the first one is only being used to return the correct app version when implementing GetAppVersion
(which is required by the interface)
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.
Oh I see, I imagine this API / standard could be improved, but for another day (and potentially requires IBC changes). SGTM!
app/keepers/keepers.go
Outdated
appKeepers.IBCKeeper.ChannelKeeper, | ||
&appKeepers.IBCKeeper.PortKeeper, | ||
appKeepers.ScopedICQKeeper, | ||
bApp, |
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.
Uhhhh, why does this take in baseApp -- we may have to audit this and all dep updates carefully then. Its not safe to just give base app access to modules.
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.
it needs a Querier. I was wondering if there was a something more restrictive that we could pass there.
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.
The interface ensures only Query(abci.RequestQuery) abci.ResponseQuery
can be called on it, but nothing prevents the code from casting it to a baseApp. An option here would be for us to build a wrapper that only exposes that (though maybe that should exist in the async_icq code)
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.
Gotcha, I think its worth making a wrapper struct on our side for now then
@@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ require ( | |||
github.com/spf13/cobra v1.6.1 | |||
github.com/spf13/pflag v1.0.5 | |||
github.com/spf13/viper v1.15.0 | |||
// Async ICQ branch: ibc-v4 | |||
github.com/strangelove-ventures/async-icq v0.0.0-20230116084035-5609e84dd443 |
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.
LGTM, can we add a release blocking TODO / issue for this to be replaced with a tag?
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.
Added #4218. I'll ping them to add a tag
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.
also, how do I make a ticket release blocking?
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 can add it to the tracker issue for now
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.
LGTM! Just needs changelog (and other issue made)
Closes: #4147
What is the purpose of the change
Integrates Async ICQ into osmosis (https://github.com/strangelove-ventures/async-icq)
Brief Changelog
Testing and Verifying
All tests pass
Documentation and Release Note
Unreleased
section inCHANGELOG.md
? (yes / no)x/<module>/spec/
) / Osmosis docs repo / not documented)