feat(upgrade): add the missed consensus version #290
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces consensus version constants and Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested Labels
Suggested Reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
TimmyExogenous
requested review from
bwhour,
adu-web3,
MaxMustermann2,
leonz789,
trestinlsd and
mikebraver
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
app/forks.go (1)
16-16: Enhance the TODO comment with more context.The TODO comment could be more descriptive about when and how this will be used for mainnet upgrade.
Consider expanding the comment to include:
- // TODO: This will be used for the mainnet upgrade. + // TODO: This will be used for the mainnet upgrade. + // The upgrade scheduling is temporarily disabled until the specific upgrade + // heights and plans are determined for the mainnet deployment.x/operator/module.go (1)
22-23: LGTM! Consider enhancing the documentation.The consensus version constant is well-defined. Consider adding a brief note about version increment criteria for future maintainers.
// consensusVersion defines the current x/operator module consensus version. +// Note: Increment this version when introducing breaking changes to the module's state machine. const consensusVersion = 1x/delegation/module.go (1)
22-23: LGTM! Consider enhancing the documentation.The consensus version constant matches the implementation in other modules. Consider adding the same documentation enhancement as suggested for the operator module.
// consensusVersion defines the current x/delegation module consensus version. +// Note: Increment this version when introducing breaking changes to the module's state machine. const consensusVersion = 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
app/app.go(1 hunks)app/forks.go(1 hunks)x/assets/module.go(2 hunks)x/avs/module.go(2 hunks)x/delegation/keeper/un_delegation_state.go(0 hunks)x/delegation/module.go(2 hunks)x/operator/module.go(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- x/delegation/keeper/un_delegation_state.go
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (go)
- GitHub Check: goreleaser
🔇 Additional comments (8)
app/forks.go (1)
15-42: Verify the implications of disabling fork upgrade scheduling.The fork upgrade scheduling has been temporarily disabled by commenting out the implementation. While this aligns with the PR objectives, we should ensure this won't affect any ongoing operations.
Let's verify if there are any immediate dependencies on this functionality:
✅ Verification successful
Disabling fork upgrade scheduling is safe
The changes are part of a coordinated update where both the implementation and its usage in BeginBlock are commented out. The TODO comments indicate this is intentional and will be re-enabled specifically for mainnet upgrade when governance is not enabled. No active dependencies are affected by this change.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for direct calls to ScheduleForkUpgrade rg -l "ScheduleForkUpgrade" # Search for any upgrade-related configurations that might be affected rg -l "upgradePlan|UpgradeKeeper"Length of output: 111
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the context of ScheduleForkUpgrade usage in app.go rg -A 5 -B 5 "ScheduleForkUpgrade" app/app.go # Look for upgrade keeper initialization and setup ast-grep --pattern 'UpgradeKeeper = $$$'Length of output: 502
x/assets/module.go (2)
23-25: LGTM! Well-documented consensus version implementation.The consensus version constant is properly documented and follows the Cosmos SDK module patterns.
141-142: LGTM! Standard implementation of ConsensusVersion interface.The ConsensusVersion method implementation is correct and consistent with the Cosmos SDK module interface requirements.
x/avs/module.go (2)
24-25: LGTM! Consensus version constant is properly defined.The constant value of 1 is appropriate for the initial consensus version.
144-145: LGTM! ConsensusVersion method is correctly implemented.The method properly returns the module's consensus version constant.
app/app.go (1)
1153-1156: Verify the impact of disabling fork upgrades.The fork upgrade scheduling has been disabled with a clear comment indicating it should only be enabled for hard-coded mainnet upgrades when governance is not enabled. This change could affect the upgrade process.
Let's check for any other fork upgrade related code that might be affected:
✅ Verification successful
Disabling fork upgrades is safe at this stage
The fork upgrade mechanism is completely inactive, with its implementation commented out in both
app/forks.goandapp/app.go. The code and comments indicate this is intentional preparation for future mainnet upgrades when governance is not enabled. No other parts of the codebase currently depend on this functionality.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other fork upgrade related code echo "Searching for fork upgrade related code..." rg -l "ScheduleForkUpgrade|ForkUpgrade" --type go # Search for upgrade plans echo "Searching for upgrade plan definitions..." rg "UpgradePlan|upgrade.v1beta1.Plan" --type goLength of output: 313
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check implementation details of fork upgrades echo "=== Fork upgrade implementation in forks.go ===" cat app/forks.go echo -e "\n=== Usage of fork-related functions ===" rg -n "ScheduleForkUpgrade|ForkUpgrade" --type go -A 3 -B 3 echo -e "\n=== Check for upgrade-related imports and interfaces ===" rg "import.*upgrade" --type go -A 5Length of output: 3057
x/operator/module.go (1)
145-146: LGTM! Implementation follows interface requirements.The ConsensusVersion method correctly implements the AppModule/ConsensusVersion interface.
x/delegation/module.go (1)
147-148: LGTM! Implementation is consistent with other modules.The ConsensusVersion method implementation maintains consistency with other modules in the codebase.
TimmyExogenous
force-pushed
the
consensus-version
branch
from
b616ae6 to
972dbed
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
app/forks.go (1)
17-42: Consider alternatives to commented-out code.Large blocks of commented code can lead to maintenance issues:
- It's unclear whether this code should be preserved for future reference
- Version control already maintains this history
- It may become outdated or irrelevant over time
Consider either:
- Removing the commented code entirely (preferred, since it's in version control)
- Moving the logic to a separate unused function with a clear comment explaining when it will be needed
- Creating a documentation file describing the upgrade process
If this code will be needed for future upgrades, I can help create a more maintainable solution. Would you like me to:
- Generate a separate upgrade planning module?
- Create documentation templates for the upgrade process?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
app/app.go(1 hunks)app/forks.go(1 hunks)x/assets/module.go(2 hunks)x/avs/module.go(2 hunks)x/delegation/keeper/un_delegation_state.go(0 hunks)x/delegation/module.go(2 hunks)x/operator/module.go(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- x/delegation/keeper/un_delegation_state.go
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- x/operator/module.go
- x/assets/module.go
- x/delegation/module.go
- x/avs/module.go
- app/app.go
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: goreleaser
🔇 Additional comments (2)
app/forks.go (2)
33-33: No formatting issues identified.The code follows the project's formatting guidelines.
15-16: Verify if TODO comment provides sufficient context.The TODO comment is quite vague. Consider enhancing it with:
- The expected timeline or conditions for enabling this feature
- Any prerequisites or dependencies for the mainnet upgrade
- Reference to relevant documentation or upgrade specifications
Let's check if there are any related upgrade documentation or specifications:
✅ Verification successful
TODO comment has adequate context within the codebase
The TODO comment is sufficiently clear when viewed alongside the surrounding implementation and comments. It's part of a well-documented upgrade mechanism that will be enabled specifically for mainnet upgrades when governance is not enabled. The current commented-out state is intentional until the upgrade is needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for upgrade-related documentation echo "Searching for upgrade documentation..." fd -e md -e txt | xargs rg -i "mainnet.*upgrade|upgrade.*plan" -A 5Length of output: 156
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Broader search for upgrade-related content echo "Searching for upgrade-related code and comments..." rg -i "upgrade|fork" -t go -A 3 echo -e "\nSearching for consensus version references..." rg -i "consensus.*version|version.*consensus" -t go -A 2 echo -e "\nChecking app configuration..." fd "config|app" -e go -e toml | xargs rg -i "upgrade|fork" -A 2Length of output: 46507
…comments regarding upgrade
TimmyExogenous
force-pushed
the
consensus-version
branch
from
972dbed to
737ea7c
Compare
Description
This PR adds the missing consensus version for some modules and adds some code comments for future upgrades. This PR serves to prepare for the mainnet upgrade.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Chores