This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
UpgradeRestrictionSignal is one block off
#3971
Labels
I3-bug
Fails to follow expected behavior.
Comments
pepyakin
changed the title
UpgradeRestrictionSignal is one block more restrictiveUpgradeRestrictionSignal is one block off
|
Nice catch, should be an easy fix too. |
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 24, 2021
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 27, 2021
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 28, 2021
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 28, 2021
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 30, 2021
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
pepyakin
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 30, 2021
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
paritytech-processbot bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 31, 2021
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
drahnr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 4, 2022
Closes #3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: #4457 (comment)
Wizdave97
pushed a commit
to ComposableFi/polkadot
that referenced
this issue
Feb 3, 2022
Closes paritytech#3971 Read the linked issue. Apart from that, this addresses the concern raised in this [comment] by just adding a test. I couldn't find a clean way to reconcile a block number delay with a PVF voting TTL, so I just resorted to rely on the test. Should be fine for now. [comment]: paritytech#4457 (comment)
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Assume
UpgradeRestrictionSignalis set. IfUpgradeRestrictionSignalis unset at the relay-blockB, then a parablock that signals an upgrade built with the relay-parentB-1can be accepted. However, the post-state atB-1forbids an upgrade sinceUpgradeRestrictionSignalis set. That means a non-🤠 parachain will not risk upgrading until it builds a parablock atBwhere the upgrade restriction is lifted.A potential solution is to unset
UpgradeRestrictionSignalaton_finalizenot inon_initialize.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: