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.

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

feat!: add app version to param store #360

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Nov 20, 2023

Conversation

cmwaters
Copy link

Description

Ported over from #347


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

@cmwaters cmwaters changed the title Cal/perist app version feat!: add app version to param store Nov 20, 2023
Copy link
Member

@evan-forbes evan-forbes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

to double check my understanding, this is a breaking change ofc but it will not be breaking until the app version if > 2, correct?

@cmwaters
Copy link
Author

to double check my understanding, this is a breaking change ofc but it will not be breaking until the app version if > 2, correct?

This is the intention. I will be able to test it properly on the celestia-app side

Copy link
Member

@evan-forbes evan-forbes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

re-approving even tho we don't have to in this repo to indicate that I have reviewed the fix

@cmwaters cmwaters merged commit 18e768c into release/v0.46.x-celestia Nov 20, 2023
32 checks passed
@cmwaters cmwaters deleted the cal/perist-app-version branch November 20, 2023 14:39
Comment on lines +134 to +135
// get and set the app version
_ = app.AppVersion(ctx)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[question] where or how does this "set" the app version? The invoked function returns the app version but I don't know what "set" is referring to here.

// AppVersion returns the application's protocol version.
func (app *BaseApp) AppVersion() uint64 {
return app.appVersion
}

Comment on lines +100 to +105
// application's version string
version string

// application's protocol version that increments on every upgrade
// if BaseApp is passed to the upgrade keeper's NewKeeper method.
appVersion uint64
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[not blocking] can these two include an example to help further differentiate them?

If version = 2.0.0 then is appVersion = 2? Is appVersion always expected to be the major version of the version string?

@rootulp
Copy link
Collaborator

rootulp commented Nov 21, 2023

On re-review, I think it would be helpful if we updated the README w/ a line item for the rationale for this modification

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants