-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 337
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
Girazoki xcm max ump weight and transact info migration #1114
Girazoki xcm max ump weight and transact info migration #1114
Conversation
…t-maintenance' into girazoki-xcm-max-ump-weight-migration
…runtime-pallet-maintenance
…t-maintenance' into girazoki-xcm-max-ump-weight-migration
…ump-weight-and-transact-info-migration
…ump-weight-and-transact-info-migration
@girazoki did you test the migration with try-runtime? |
Yes, but I will try one more time before merging because I changed the fee_per_Second |
…ump-weight-and-transact-info-migration
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.
LGTM, although I think this may not be the end of integer resolution problems in this code. I'm opening an internal ticket to review this later.
What does it do?
Attempt to perform an migration on the TransactInfo storage item. I had to modify the migrations pallet to accept a trait that is implemented for tuples, as this migration should only be applied to moonbase and moonriver runtimes
In particular, the TransactInfo is changed in the following ways:
What important points reviewers should know?
Is there something left for follow-up PRs?
What alternative implementations were considered?
Are there relevant PRs or issues in other repositories (Substrate, Polkadot, Frontier, Cumulus)?
What value does it bring to the blockchain users?