Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

ChainAccount helpers for operations supported by the chain - orchestration #9212

Closed
1 task done
turadg opened this issue Apr 9, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed
1 task done

ChainAccount helpers for operations supported by the chain - orchestration #9212

turadg opened this issue Apr 9, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
@turadg
Labels
enhancement New feature or request needs-design

Comments

@turadg
Copy link
Member

turadg commented Apr 9, 2024 •
edited
Loading

What is the Problem Being Solved?

Different chains support different functionality. The API should provide the appropriate methods that function on the particular chain.

Description of the Design

Probably using or adapting Telescope. It may already have the chain info to generate the proper methods

Tasks
Beta Give feedback
  1. implement StakingAccountQueries interface #10016
    1 of 1
    turadg

Security Considerations

Scaling Considerations

Test Plan

Upgrade Considerations
@turadg turadg added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 9, 2024
@turadg turadg self-assigned this Apr 9, 2024
@0xpatrickdev 0xpatrickdev mentioned this issue May 24, 2024
Merged
This was referenced May 31, 2024
Merged
Merged
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 4, 2024
@mergify
network test tools (#9440)
6c8bf5c 
refs: #9212

## Description

#9439 needs some of the fakes
in the network tests. This wraps them up a bit for re-use elsewhere.

### Security Considerations
n/a, test code
<!-- Does this change introduce new assumptions or dependencies that, if
violated, could introduce security vulnerabilities? How does this PR
change the boundaries between mutually-suspicious components? What new
authorities are introduced by this change, perhaps by new API calls?
-->

### Scaling Considerations
n/a, test code

<!-- Does this change require or encourage significant increase in
consumption of CPU cycles, RAM, on-chain storage, message exchanges, or
other scarce resources? If so, can that be prevented or mitigated? -->

### Documentation Considerations

API docs may show these

### Testing Considerations

per se

### Upgrade Considerations

n/a, test code
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 4, 2024
@mergify
9212 chain helpers (#9439)
ceec1d5 
refs: #9212 

## Description

Incremental progress on #9212 

Plus some drive-by improvements 

### Security Considerations

<!-- Does this change introduce new assumptions or dependencies that, if
violated, could introduce security vulnerabilities? How does this PR
change the boundaries between mutually-suspicious components? What new
authorities are introduced by this change, perhaps by new API calls?
-->

### Scaling Considerations

<!-- Does this change require or encourage significant increase in
consumption of CPU cycles, RAM, on-chain storage, message exchanges, or
other scarce resources? If so, can that be prevented or mitigated? -->

### Documentation Considerations

<!-- Give our docs folks some hints about what needs to be described to
downstream users.

Backwards compatibility: what happens to existing data or deployments
when this code is shipped? Do we need to instruct users to do something
to upgrade their saved data? If there is no upgrade path possible, how
bad will that be for users?

-->

### Testing Considerations

<!-- Every PR should of course come with tests of its own functionality.
What additional tests are still needed beyond those unit tests? How does
this affect CI, other test automation, or the testnet?
-->

### Upgrade Considerations

<!-- What aspects of this PR are relevant to upgrading live production
systems, and how should they be addressed? -->
@dtribble
Copy link
Member

dtribble commented Jul 1, 2024

Our canonical example: Stride chain should have a liquidStake ICA operation that's not part of the general chain API

@0xpatrickdev 0xpatrickdev changed the title ChainAccount helpers for operations supported by the chain ChainAccount helpers for operations supported by the chain - orchestration Jul 2, 2024
0xpatrickdev added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 2, 2024
@0xpatrickdev
fix(orchestration): only LCA has .deposit()
95cfd3c 
- removes .deposit() from CosmosOrchestrationAccount as #9193 stipulates this will be done via an LCA
- adds LocalAccountMethods type, although unused, for documenatation purposes. and, eventually, to support #9212
0xpatrickdev added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 3, 2024
@0xpatrickdev
chore: cosmos-orch-account does not have .deposit()
e794916 
- removes .deposit() from CosmosOrchestrationAccount as #9193 stipulates this will be done via an LCA
- adds LocalAccountMethods type, although unused, for documenatation purposes. and, eventually, to support #9212
0xpatrickdev added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 3, 2024
@0xpatrickdev
chore: cosmos-orch-account does not have .deposit()
1b4d728 
- removes .deposit() from CosmosOrchestrationAccount as #9193 stipulates this will be done via an LCA
- adds LocalAccountMethods type, although unused, for documenatation purposes. and, eventually, to support #9212
0xpatrickdev added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 3, 2024
@0xpatrickdev
chore: cosmos-orch-account does not have .deposit()
8f6512c 
- removes .deposit() from CosmosOrchestrationAccount as #9193 stipulates this will be done via an LCA
- adds LocalAccountMethods type, although unused, for documenatation purposes. and, eventually, to support #9212
0xpatrickdev added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 3, 2024
@0xpatrickdev
chore: cosmos-orch-account does not have .deposit()
061accd 
- removes .deposit() from CosmosOrchestrationAccount as #9193 stipulates this will be done via an LCA
- adds LocalAccountMethods type, although unused, for documenatation purposes. and, eventually, to support #9212
@turadg
Copy link
Member Author

turadg commented Sep 18, 2024

Closing with #10017 deferred

@turadg turadg closed this as completed Sep 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@turadg turadg

Labels
enhancement New feature or request needs-design
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@turadg @dtribble