-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 597
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
removed QueryLatestConsensusState #5991
removed QueryLatestConsensusState #5991
Conversation
WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change involves removing the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Files selected for processing (1)
- modules/core/04-channel/client/utils/utils.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
modules/core/04-channel/client/utils/utils.go (1)
- 125-130: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-255]
Overall, the removal of the
QueryLatestConsensusState
function and any related helper functions appears to have been completed as intended. The file adheres well to the Uber Golang style guide, and the remaining code is consistent and well-structured. One area for potential improvement is the use ofcontext.Background()
in gRPC calls. If possible, consider using more specific contexts passed from higher-level calls to better handle cancellations and timeouts.
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Files selected for processing (1)
- modules/core/04-channel/client/utils/utils.go (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
modules/core/04-channel/client/utils/utils.go (1)
- 14-19: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-255]
Consider passing a
context.Context
as a parameter to functions making gRPC calls instead of usingcontext.Background()
directly. This change would allow for better control over request lifecycles, including timeouts and cancellations, enhancing the maintainability and robustness of the 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.
Thanks, @chandiniv1.
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.
Thanks 🙏
should we add a changelog or note in migration doc? cc. @crodriguezvega |
oh, yeah, we definitely should! |
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.
Thank you @chandiniv1
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Files selected for processing (1)
- CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
CHANGELOG.md (1)
- 44-44: The documentation accurately reflects the removal of the
QueryLatestConsensusState
client CLI command in thecore/04-channel
module. This change is correctly categorized under "API Breaking", providing clear information to users about the impact of this change.
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.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Files selected for processing (1)
- docs/docs/05-migrations/13-v8-to-v9.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 2
docs/docs/05-migrations/13-v8-to-v9.md (2)
- 37-38: The documentation correctly notes the removal of the
QueryLatestConsensusState
function from the04-channel
CLI. However, it would enhance clarity to briefly mention the rationale behind this removal or link to the relevant discussion for readers seeking more context.- 34-41: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [41-42]
The deprecation notice for the testing package functions is clear and provides a good directive for users on the alternatives. It might be beneficial to also include a brief example of how to transition from the deprecated functions to the new ones, aiding users in adapting their existing code more seamlessly.
closes: #5960
Summary by CodeRabbit
QueryLatestConsensusState
in thecore/04-channel
module, impacting API functionality.coordinator
.