refactor: Fix RefundFeesOnChannel #1244
Conversation
colin-axner
requested review from
AdityaSripal,
crodriguezvega,
seantking,
charleenfei and
damiannolan
as code owners
| // If the escrow account runs out of balance then fee module will become locked as this implies the presence | ||
| // of a severe bug. When the fee module is locked, no fee distributions will be performed. | ||
| // Please see ADR 004 for more information. | ||
| func (k Keeper) RefundFeesOnChannelClosure(ctx sdk.Context, portID, channelID string) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm starting to wonder if this function should never return an error. The only place it errors is with regards to the refund address. We could either panic or lock the fee module since this is a bug. If we decide to change it, I think it'd be best to do in a follow up pr
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think its fine for now 👍
Agree on follow up if things change!
| if k.bankKeeper.BlockedAddr(refundAddr) { | ||
| continue |
modules/apps/29-fee/keeper/keeper.go
Outdated
| packetFees := k.MustUnmarshalFees(iterator.Value()) | ||
| if cb(packetFees) { | ||
| break | ||
| packetId, err := types.ParseKeyFeesInEscrow(string(iterator.Key())) |
| refundAcc := suite.chainA.SenderAccount.GetAddress() | ||
| packetID1 := channeltypes.NewPacketId(suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelConfig.PortID, suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelID, 1) | ||
| packetID2 := channeltypes.NewPacketId(suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelConfig.PortID, suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelID, 2) | ||
| packetID5 := channeltypes.NewPacketId(suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelConfig.PortID, suite.path.EndpointA.ChannelID, 51) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How come you skipped packetID 3 and 4? :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just to do a little fuzz testing. It isn't necessarily true that all packets on a channel will be incentivized so I figured it didn't hurt to put things out of order a little
| fee := types.Fee{ | ||
| AckFee: defaultAckFee, | ||
| RecvFee: defaultReceiveFee, | ||
| TimeoutFee: defaultTimeoutFee, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: could use types.NewFee(defaultRecvFee, defaultAckFee, defaultTimeoutFee)
feel free to ignore
| fee = types.Fee{ | ||
| RecvFee: validCoins, | ||
| AckFee: validCoins2, | ||
| TimeoutFee: validCoins3, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we rename validCoins to defaultRecvFee..etc, to be consistent with keeper tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought about this as well. I think we should, but would prefer to have this be done in a followup since this pr already has a bit of diffs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, no worries. Sounds good to me :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I decided to do it in this pr
| // If the escrow account runs out of balance then fee module will become locked as this implies the presence | ||
| // of a severe bug. When the fee module is locked, no fee distributions will be performed. | ||
| // Please see ADR 004 for more information. | ||
| func (k Keeper) RefundFeesOnChannelClosure(ctx sdk.Context, portID, channelID string) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think its fine for now 👍
Agree on follow up if things change!
…aultAckFee, rename validCoins3 to defaultTimeoutFee in tests
…bc-go into colin/860-refund-fees-onclosure
…osmos#1244) <!-- Please read and fill out this form before submitting your PR. Please make sure you have reviewed our contributors guide before submitting your first PR. --> ## Overview This PR updates the release CI to trigger when a PR with the `create-release` label is merged. See tested action: https://github.com/MSevey/workflows/actions/runs/6489995567 <!-- Please provide an explanation of the PR, including the appropriate context, background, goal, and rationale. If there is an issue with this information, please provide a tl;dr and link the issue. --> ## Checklist <!-- Please complete the checklist to ensure that the PR is ready to be reviewed. IMPORTANT: PRs should be left in Draft until the below checklist is completed. --> - [ ] New and updated code has appropriate documentation - [ ] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing - [ ] Required CI checks are passing - [ ] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates - [ ] Linked issues closed with keywords
Description
read #1060
closes: #860
closes: #780
Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.
docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)godoccomments.Unreleasedsection inCHANGELOG.mdFiles changedin the Github PR explorerCodecov Reportin the comment section below once CI passes