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

Nicolas/v19.x backport hist queries #6425

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

nicolaslara
Copy link
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

backport of #6362

Testing and Verifying

all tests should pass

Documentation and Release Note

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes?
  • Changelog entry added to Unreleased section of CHANGELOG.md?

Where is the change documented?

  • Specification (x/{module}/README.md)
  • Osmosis documentation site
  • Code comments?
  • N/A

@@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ require (
)

replace (
// Our cosmos-sdk branch is: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/cosmos-sdk, current branch: v16.x. Direct commit link: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/cosmos-sdk/commit/ed4eb883f2a65bd5343e9d2f6186060f45294cb2
github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk => github.com/osmosis-labs/cosmos-sdk v0.45.0-rc1.0.20230703010110-ed4eb883f2a6
// Our cosmos-sdk branch is: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/cosmos-sdk, current branch: osmosis-main. Direct commit link: https://github.com/osmosis-labs/cosmos-sdk/commit/05346fa12992
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK - I see what the issue is.

We should be using the v16.x branch here as osmosis-main is only compatible with main

However, latest commit on v16.x is blocked on this PR: #6341

2 options to resolve:

  1. Wait until refactor(deps): switch to cosmossdk.io/math from fork math (backport #6238) #6341
  2. Use this commit specifically: osmosis-labs/cosmos-sdk@313b4ba

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think I tried option #2 and it had the same issue, but we can try again. If that works, it seems like that's the easiest path forward

@p0mvn
Copy link
Member

p0mvn commented Sep 20, 2023

Discussed offline that this got obsoleted by #6238

Looks like #6238 broke e2e though, will be looking into that separately

@p0mvn p0mvn closed this Sep 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants