This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add Bridge Header Sync to Rococo Runtime #2983
Add Bridge Header Sync to Rococo Runtime #2983
Changes from 11 commits
f6682b8
eed0d61
2c5e641
060c9e2
99a4c21
8d5c068
c52b752
e969faf
fbbc6a5
7727420
348a5f2
ff0fee4
9cf8fbb
8a029c9
f65482d
5e30ceb
3b69d93
1bcf77a
d998df1
92f2205
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
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.
I suppose these changes don't come via
subtree
update, IMHO we shouldn't be mixing addingbridges
code andpolkadot
code in one PR. The point ofbridges
code being part of the repository is to make it easy for polkadot devs to fix any substrate inconsistencies, not to add features.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.
Woah, please use real accounts, that's rococo staging.
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.
Well the problem is what accounts do we use? I figured it would be best to use dev accounts, and then talk to the DevOps team to see what "real" accounts to use.
We'd need to talk to them anyways before this would be deployed to Rococo anyways
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.
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.
I guess
root
is reasonable to startThere 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.
I think an explanatory comment would be nice here, cause we are adding
Rococo
bridge pallet toRococo
runtime. It's only because Rococo and Wococo have exactly the same runtime, but the intention is to useBridgeWococoGrandpa
pallet on Rococo andBridgeRococoGrandpa
pallet on Wococo. The other pallet will always be uninitialized/halted.This is a bit excessive and confusing, but I think it's acceptable for the matter of simplicity (no runtime duplication).
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.
Can we do something like that instead? This will allow us to catch-up immediately in case of 4 hours downtime.