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

Tracking issue for tendermint v0.34 #6365

Closed
12 of 16 tasks
tac0turtle opened this issue Jun 8, 2020 · 12 comments
Closed
12 of 16 tasks

Tracking issue for tendermint v0.34 #6365

tac0turtle opened this issue Jun 8, 2020 · 12 comments

Comments

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member

tac0turtle commented Jun 8, 2020

This issue is meant as a tracking issue for the upcoming tendermint release and things that need to be completed in the sdk:

Here is the Tendermint v0.34 tracking issue: tendermint/tendermint#5288

For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged
  • Contributor assigned/self-assigned
@fedekunze fedekunze changed the title Tracking issue for tendeermint 0.34 Tracking issue for tendermint v0.34 Jun 8, 2020
@cmwaters
Copy link
Contributor

This might be relevant here. The new evidence that can be detected and committed to a block is:

  • DuplicateVoteEvidence
  • PhantomValidatorEvidence
  • LunaticValidatorEvidence
  • AmnesiaEvidence

It is also possible to commit PotentialAmnesiaEvidence but the consensus algorithm alone won't do it.

@zmanian zmanian added this to the v0.39 milestone Jun 13, 2020
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 4, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member Author

* DuplicateVoteEvidence

* LunaticValidatorEvidence

* AmnesiaEvidence

phantomevidence was removed

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member Author

tm-db 0.6.x is returning more errors now instead of panicking. A walkthrough of the code base is recommended to check errors.

@clevinson
Copy link
Contributor

@marbar3778 is it required for 0.40 that we update x/evidence to hande the new evidence types above?

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member Author

@marbar3778 is it required for 0.40 that we update x/evidence to hande the new evidence types above?

It is recommended but if not then IF something happens the sdk wont handle it. @cwgoes if the evidence updates don't land in 0.40 would it be a problem?

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Aug 25, 2020

@marbar3778 is it required for 0.40 that we update x/evidence to hande the new evidence types above?

It is recommended but if not then IF something happens the sdk wont handle it. @cwgoes if the evidence updates don't land in 0.40 would it be a problem?

The SDK definitely needs to handle all evidence types Tendermint might send over ABCI and slash validators accordingly, yes.

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

@marbar3778 , there are still few open issue.
Is there anything we should help / watch on coming from the Tendermint side?

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member Author

@marbar3778 , there are still few open issue.
Is there anything we should help / watch on coming from the Tendermint side?

Everything from the Tendermint side is almost complete, outstanding is evidence.

The only thing I would say is outstanding on the SDK side is block pruning support.

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, are there going to be any changes which will require updates on this work (SDK side)?

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks, are there going to be any changes which will require updates on this work (SDK side)?

I don't see any changes needed after your PR is merged, but take that with a grain of salt. lol 😄

@tac0turtle
Copy link
Member Author

This issue can be closed, not sure the benefit of keeping it open for only updating to the latest release of tendermint?

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

No branches or pull requests

6 participants