Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat: adding
chanUpgradeAck
handler to 04-channel #3828feat: adding
chanUpgradeAck
handler to 04-channel #3828Changes from 17 commits
1293330
c4dce22
a8c6882
c17c8ed
152a873
fbacd83
dfaf589
2834124
f92edcb
0ae120f
73e9352
2b8b3fe
e53d1aa
f9c2167
18638ac
a11593d
0c45acd
1622f1d
e949908
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Should we do this instead?
I believe this is the way we retrieve the connection from the channel keeper in the rest of the 04-channel codebase. If I'm not mistaken, the
GetConnection
function in channel keeper is only used in ICA, since it is not possible to access the connection keeper from 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.
seems like all of the channel upgradability code is currently using
k.GetConnection()
, maybe we could address all together and choose one for consistency in a follow up PR.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.
opened #3840 as I'd like to get this merged
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.
spoke with @AdityaSripal about this yesterday, testing this case as a full integration with the testing lib is tricky as its a timing sensitive state we end up, which would require a historical proof being submitted for the second chain to transition to TRY.
I chose to override the channel state directly here in order to cover this case.
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.
Maybe we can open an issue to make the test case more robust? It might be nice to have a test which simulates this scenario as it would potentially occur
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.
#3831