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

Support legacy recover client proposal for v8 in-flight proposals #4721

Closed
3 tasks
colin-axner opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #4748
Closed
3 tasks

Support legacy recover client proposal for v8 in-flight proposals #4721

colin-axner opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #4748
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@colin-axner
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

v8 currently removes two proposals:

  • legacy ibc software upgrades
  • legacy recover client

I recommend the following:

For legacy IBC software upgrades, leave as deleted, but add checks in the upgrade test to v8 to ensure that in-flight upgrade proposals safely fail after the upgrade. The reasoning for leaving deleted is the fact that the chain is already undergoing a software upgrade and it is not recommended to be proposing the next software upgrade during a software upgrade. This is an edge case situation and I would recommend allowing this proposal to naturally fail, requiring the chain to resubmit using the new proposal type.

For legacy recover clients, revive the proposal type, mark it as deprecated and modify the legacy proposal handler to convert the legacy type into the new msg recover client type. The msg recover client handler can then be used to execute the legacy proposal type. Support for in-flight legacy recover client proposals will be made for v8, but given that it is deprecated, chains should use the new proposal type to avoid in-flight client recovery failing when upgrading to v9. Additional checks should be added for legacy handling in the upgrade test

The migration docs should be updated accordingly.

Thank you @alpe for pointing out that proposals may be in-flight at the time of the upgrade.


For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged/assigned
@damiannolan
Copy link
Member

Thanks for creating the issue @colin-axner

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants