GRPC client for the client package.

[dzmitryhil]

This change is 

[miladz68]

Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @silverspase, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

---

integration-tests/chain.go line 177 at r1 (raw file):

	// TODO(dhil) remove switch once crust is updated
	if strings.HasPrefix(cfg.GRPCAddress, "tcp") {

maybe instead of using tcp to differentiate the 2 different endpoints, we should use separate flags ?

---

integration-tests/init.go line 48 at r1 (raw file):

	)

	flag.StringVar(&coredAddress, "cored-address", "localhost:9090", "Address of cored node started by znet")

I think we can introduce rpc-address and grpc-address and then later remove this cored-address flag.

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68, @silverspase, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

---

integration-tests/chain.go line 177 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, miladz68 (milad) wrote…

maybe instead of using tcp to differentiate the 2 different endpoints, we should use separate flags ?

This is the temp solution, I'll remove it once we update the crust.

---

integration-tests/init.go line 48 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, miladz68 (milad) wrote…

I think we can introduce rpc-address and grpc-address and then later remove this cored-address flag.

Why do we need both for the tests? IMO one is enough.

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, @silverspase, and @ysv)

a discussion (no related file):
Shouldn't we test both rpc and grpc endpoints?

---

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68, @silverspase, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

Shouldn't we test both rpc and grpc endpoints?

I've tested them locally by running the tests, what additionally do you propose?
I thought about the round-robin balancing for the transactions, but that might lead to not reproducible tests, which is very bad.

---

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, @silverspase, and @ysv)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, dzmitryhil (Dzmitry Hil) wrote…

I've tested them locally by running the tests, what additionally do you propose?
I thought about the round-robin balancing for the transactions, but that might lead to not reproducible tests, which is very bad.

I'm just thinking about single test sending bank send over rpc. It would be also possible to run the full test suite, once using grpc and once using rpc but it would be an overkill IMO.

---

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dzmitryhil, @miladz68, @silverspase, and @ysv)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

I'm just thinking about single test sending bank send over rpc. It would be also possible to run the full test suite, once using grpc and once using rpc but it would be an overkill IMO.

anyway, later on we need to provide some protection against rpc issue you found

---

[dzmitryhil]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68, @silverspase, @wojtek-coreum, and @ysv)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, wojtek-coreum (Wojtek) wrote…

anyway, later on we need to provide some protection against rpc issue you found

Right. But not for that PR.

---

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @miladz68, @silverspase, and @ysv)

[miladz68]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @silverspase and @ysv)

[wojtek-coreum]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @silverspase and @ysv)