-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 399
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
extend 03-connection with a proof object for chains that can't introspect their own consensus state. #839
Merged
+14
−6
Merged
extend 03-connection with a proof object for chains that can't introspect their own consensus state. #839
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Is there a way to signal that this is optional?
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 my understanding is that in your implementation the proof field here is actually a marshalled header.
This is the flow from my understanding:
proofHostConsensusState
So this field shouldn't actually contain a
CommitmentProof
object. Instead it contains some arbitrary chain-specific data, that will be used to verifyproofConsensus
that is passed in above.So I think instead of referring to it this way, it makes more sense to call this something like:
hostConsensusInfo: bytes
or something similar, and to signal in documentation that this is optional for chains to accept.
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.
yeah there is
how about
hostConsensusStateProof?: bytes
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 still think it shouldn't be named proof. Because the object in question is not actually a proof.
It is metadata that is constructing the value that will get proven agains the
consensusStateProof
which is a separate argument to this function.Open to a different name other than
hostConsensusInfo
but I do think we should avoidProof
in the name since semantically it doesn't match with the way we're usingProof
arguments in IBC spec functionsThere 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.
Is there any other information a chain may request to extend the connection handshake info with? Or is this the only expected addition?
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 is the only addition