This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
paras: fix upgrade restriction signal #4603
Merged
Conversation
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
|
Current dependencies on/for this PR:
This comment was auto-generated by Graphite. |
This was referenced Dec 24, 2021
2 tasks
pepyakin
added
B0-silent
pepyakin
force-pushed
the
pep-configuration-go-ahead-consistency
branch
from
609c38a
to
3a94ef4
Compare
pepyakin
force-pushed
the
pep-paras-restriction
branch
from
09671c1
to
9d5f337
Compare
pepyakin
force-pushed
the
pep-configuration-go-ahead-consistency
branch
from
3a94ef4
to
f058f30
Compare
pepyakin
force-pushed
the
pep-paras-restriction
branch
from
9d5f337
to
f9e773b
Compare
Base automatically changed from
pep-configuration-go-ahead-consistency
to
master
December 28, 2021 15:46
pepyakin
force-pushed
the
pep-paras-restriction
branch
from
f9e773b
to
45e0dcd
Compare
pepyakin
force-pushed
the
pep-paras-restriction
branch
from
45e0dcd
to
b5606ad
Compare
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
pepyakin
force-pushed
the
pep-paras-restriction
branch
from
b5606ad
to
6ce5427
Compare
bkchr
approved these changes
Dec 31, 2021
| @@ -1004,7 +1004,9 @@ impl<T: Config> Pallet<T> { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| /// Called by the initializer to finalize the configuration pallet. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not your fault, but the comment is c&p?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, but it does look correct, or?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this the configuration pallet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah gotcha xD will fix
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 31, 2021
As was brought up in [here][og], we have some copy&paste comments. I fixed them and also took liberty of fixing some other places. Specifically, those that say "module" instead of contemporary "pallet". [og]: #4603 (comment)
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 31, 2021
As was brought up in [here][og], we have some copy&paste comments. I fixed them and also took liberty of fixing some other places. Specifically, those that say "module" instead of contemporary "pallet". [og]: #4603 (comment)
|
It is not critical by any means, but it is an issue, I believe. Fixing it will actually simplify the behavior from my perspective (at the cost of small complication because of having to do logic in on_finalize) and that will less likely shoot us in the foot down the road |
|
bot merge |
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 1, 2022
As was brought up in [here][og], we have some copy&paste comments. I fixed them and also took liberty of fixing some other places. Specifically, those that say "module" instead of contemporary "pallet". [og]: #4603 (comment)
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 1, 2022
As was brought up in [here][og], we have some copy&paste comments. I fixed them and also took liberty of fixing some other places. Specifically, those that say "module" instead of contemporary "pallet". [og]: #4603 (comment)
ordian
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2022
* master: Set CurrentCodeHash before running some dispatchable benchmarks (#4645) paras: split tests (#4636) Bump quote from 1.0.10 to 1.0.14 (#4632) Bump pin-project from 1.0.8 to 1.0.9 (#4606) chore: fix copy&paste and tidy comments (#4646) derive Copy and Clone for Upgrade signals (#4637) (#4647) paras: fix upgrade restriction signal (#4603) configuration: Rename validation_upgrade_{frequency -> cooldown} (#4635) Bump lru from 0.7.1 to 0.7.2 (#4633) paras: add governance control dispatchables (#4575)
drahnr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 4, 2022
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
drahnr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 4, 2022
As was brought up in [here][og], we have some copy&paste comments. I fixed them and also took liberty of fixing some other places. Specifically, those that say "module" instead of contemporary "pallet". [og]: #4603 (comment)
Wizdave97
pushed a commit
to ComposableFi/polkadot
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2022
Closes paritytech#3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: paritytech#4457 (comment)
Wizdave97
pushed a commit
to ComposableFi/polkadot
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2022
As was brought up in [here][og], we have some copy&paste comments. I fixed them and also took liberty of fixing some other places. Specifically, those that say "module" instead of contemporary "pallet". [og]: paritytech#4603 (comment)
ggwpez
pushed a commit
to ggwpez/runtimes
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2023
As was brought up in [here][og], we have some copy&paste comments. I fixed them and also took liberty of fixing some other places. Specifically, those that say "module" instead of contemporary "pallet". [og]: paritytech/polkadot#4603 (comment)
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
Closes #3971
Read the linked issue.
Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this comment by
just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block
number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the
test. Should be fine for now.