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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
chore: add solomachine client storage #1144
chore: add solomachine client storage #1144
Changes from 1 commit
9ce3b69
ae972c3
c749c70
9628a60
663ede8
ca18137
cdf7d35
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.
where is this coming from? Solo machines don't store consensus states
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.
Slightly confused here, isn't this code run for solomachines too?
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.
It is, but it shouldn't be. This was another justification for why setting the consensus state within the light client implementation is useful. I thought I documented this clearly, but this was all I could find:
ref
Solo machines shouldn't be setting a consensus state ever. It has a single consensus state which is constantly updated and thus it is stored within the client state. The code linked above was an inefficiency, performing unnecessary storage
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.
Ahh, okay! Tbh I was confused why
ConsensusState
existed as a field on the solomachineClientState
and the extra storage was happening.This should all be much easier to reason about when the refactor is done. Thank you for clarifying this and providing context, much appreciated!
Updated and removed this code :)
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 need to make a decision on whether telemetry and events should remain to be emitted from
02-client
or from within theClientState
implementation. We may need to pass the client ID as an additional arg if we want to do this in the lightclient implementation, or otherwise we may need to return the consensus height. Any thoughts on this? cc. @colin-axner @seantkingThere 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 should not require light client implementations to emit events. This decision informed the proposed design. We should allow light client to optionally emit their own events and telemetry. This is technically possible by constructing a
ClientMessage
which contains the clientID, but I'm not opposed to adding the clientID as an argument to the function since 02-client already has that information. It doesn't provide any usefulness outside of event emission/telemetry since the client store is prefixed by the clientIDThere 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.
To expand further on why we should not require light client implementations to emit events:
Relayers make use of the events we have in 02-client. By passing this to light client implementations, we lose standardization and risk light client implementators making mistakes. Since the functionality called by 02-client is very verbose now, 02-client can emit appropriate events when doing updates or updates on misbehaviour
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.
Okay, great, that makes a lot of sense! Thanks, I'll remove the events and telemetry from here.
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 test for this function? Can you check that the correct client state is set in the store?
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 a test function for this. I was initially just doing an assertion on the returned value but I can adapt it to query the store. Will do the same as you suggest for
UpdateState
👍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.
Sweet, I just figure better to do now so when we remove the return values we don't have to add testing code
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.
Definitely! Agreed 💯
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.
can you add checks on the successful case that the correct client state is set in the store?