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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Adding updates to composite router and scaffolding for LegacyIBCModule #7010
Adding updates to composite router and scaffolding for LegacyIBCModule #7010
Changes from 6 commits
0f385e4
af932d1
907f410
496f45f
2c42da0
d2d3e75
48cdc84
9780c65
77ad41e
f580734
5bcc6eb
6dea99f
25fbaf5
80d1fc9
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.
also aware having 2 things called legacy and classic of almost the same type is terrible naming, so we can change that :D
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 add a todo that one will be removed?
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.
this part I don't understand. Is it to avoid changing the current wiring in app.go?
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.
essentially yes. In the app.go we do things like
etc.
Previously, we just built up a slice of callbacks and appended, but the idea now is that we have one type (
LegacyIBCModule
) that contains this list.So we can either
A: construct the full list of callbacks and pass to
router.AddClassicRoute
( from app.go )B: internally maintain this list and build up the
LegacyIBCModule
( in router_v2.go )This is solution B. We should be able to remove this when our app.gos use version A
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.
I think the app.go wiring on the router v2 added in the feature branch is actually incorrect. Apps shouldn't be doing the
wrap()
step anymoreI prefer option A
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.
Ah I understand the issue now. If we want to test ics29 for example, currently it wraps other apps and doesn't have an api to return as a standalone app, so to use it for certain handshake functions, we still call the wrapping. I guess once everything is done, we can remove the additional add route calls
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 track removal of this logic
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.
I think we cannot do option A until we remove the middleware altogether, looking at some code on the feature branch now
This does not seem correct, we are currently iterating over {transfer, feeWrappedTransfer } which will almost certainly not behave the same as a single fee Wrapped transfer with router v1
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 discussed offline ^ . We will stick with current wiring and I'll open an issue to change to the final form