-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 586
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
chore: set up IBCTestStakingKeeper interface #2028
chore: set up IBCTestStakingKeeper interface #2028
Conversation
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.
LGTM, you'll need to update the GetStakingKeeper
function in simapp/app.go
as well. The readme needs to be updated too. Left a few comments
testing/README.md
Outdated
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ type TestingApp interface { | |||
|
|||
// ibc-go additions | |||
GetBaseApp() *baseapp.BaseApp | |||
GetStakingKeeper() stakingkeeper.Keeper | |||
GetIBCTestStakingKeeper() ibctestingtypes.StakingKeeper |
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 honestly liked the name GetStakingKeeper
, since the name of the type already indicates that this is for testing, so I consider that is redundant to add Test
in the name of the function... But no problem if we decide to rename it.
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 renamed on request from @ValarDragon in the issue, i don't have a particularly strong opinion either way tho. I can see the value add in being explicit, but it is true that the type is also quite informative.
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 now that the interface returns the ibctestingtypes.StakingKeeper
it can be redundant. I do agree GetStakingKeeper
is cleaner, but I understand this function will be implemented in app.go
for a production chain.
@ValarDragon do you still prefer GetIBCTestStakingKeeper
given the new return value
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.
Thanks for picking this up, @charleenfei!
@@ -23,11 +23,11 @@ func TestChangeValSet(t *testing.T) { | |||
amount2, ok := sdk.NewIntFromString("30000000000000000000") | |||
require.True(t, ok) | |||
|
|||
val := chainA.App.GetStakingKeeper().GetValidators(chainA.GetContext(), 4) | |||
val := chainA.GetSimApp().StakingKeeper.GetValidators(chainA.GetContext(), 4) |
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 it not possible to keep using App.GetIBCTestStakingKeeper()
and add GetValidators
and Delegate
to the StakingKeeper
interface?
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 idea is that in our simApp, we would continue using the staking module's staking keeper so we don't actually need to add these two methods as they are already there.
it's just that in the testing chain and testing app setup, we would like to enable osmosis to swap out their customised interfluid staking keeper so they can use our testing setup. this is why we only need to add that one method which is used in the testing/chain.go file to the new interface.
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 actually requested those functions to not be added. I think we should keep our interfaces as small as possible (ideally we wouldn't even need the staking keeper interface)
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.
LGTM. Could you add a changelog entry?
I'm also okay leaving the GetStakingKeeper
name as is and doing in a followup pr if it is still desired. I don't have strong preferences though
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.
followup ACK
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.
Nice work!
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2028 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 80.03% 80.03%
=======================================
Files 167 167
Lines 11784 11784
=======================================
Hits 9431 9431
Misses 1936 1936
Partials 417 417
|
* initial interface definition * update simapp * update godocs (cherry picked from commit 4d4dbcf)
We should probably add a note about the API change in the migration docs. Maybe link the simapp change we have as well? |
* initial interface definition * update simapp * update godocs (cherry picked from commit 4d4dbcf) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md # testing/app.go # testing/simapp/app.go
* chore: set up IBCTestStakingKeeper interface (#2028) * initial interface definition * update simapp * update godocs (cherry picked from commit 4d4dbcf) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md # testing/app.go # testing/simapp/app.go * resolving conflicts Co-authored-by: Charly <charly@interchain.berlin> Co-authored-by: Damian Nolan <damiannolan@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Carlos Rodriguez <carlos@interchain.io>
Description
closes: #1971
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/
)godoc
comments.Unreleased
section inCHANGELOG.md
Files changed
in the Github PR explorerCodecov Report
in the comment section below once CI passes