-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 302
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
ibc: handle height in gRPC request metadata if specified #4905
Conversation
debug!("height header was missing; assuming a height of 0"); | ||
Ok(TheHeight::zero().into_inner()) | ||
} | ||
Some(entry) => entry |
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.
We can use the ibc-types-core-client::Height
type and avoid the newtyping. With that said, I think we should just merge this, and then favor using the new messages once those become available: cosmos/ibc-go#7303
Thanks a lot, learned a bunch from going down this rabbit hole. I am doing some testing and will merge EOD or early tomorrow. |
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.
🙏
Updates the penumbra deps to commit [0] on main branch, including merge of [1]. The naive dep update breaks builds, so further changes are required. [0] ac7abacc9bb09503d6fd6a396bc0b6850079084e [1] penumbra-zone/penumbra#4905
Bumping the Penumbra dependencies to v0.80.x, specifically on the current main branch of the protocol repo. Ideally we'd tag a v0.80.10, containing fixes from penumbra-zone/penumbra#4905, but we haven't done that just yet. Notably, the bump in Penumbra protocol deps will involve a schema change for the view database. I haven't tested locally yet, but I expect Hermes when upgraded to throw an error about the view schema mismatch. If and when that happens during interactive testing on the testnet, I'll make sure to document those errors so we can communicate the need to perform maintenance to operators.
## Describe your changes This PR: - instruments IBC gRPC spans on `DEBUG` - prefer using the `HostInterface` trait to hardcoding height/revision for gRPC responses - systematically defer to the query height hint (in the gRPC headers) for **every API that returns a proof** (extending #4905, cc @noot) We will be able to rip out all of the header selection logic once `https://github.com/cosmos/ibc-go/pull/7303` is merged. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [ ] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > RPC
Describe your changes
Check if height is specified in the metadata for relevant IBC gRPC queries and get the respective snapshot if it is provided. If the height is not specified in the metadata, the latest snapshot is used, which is the existing behaviour.
Reasoning: since astria uses only gRPC queries for all the IBC queries in the hermes impl, but the gRPC proto messages don't contain the query height, we implemented a fix by putting the height in the metadata. Without this fix, our hermes impl would submit unexpected proofs on occasion, as the proofs would be off-by-one height than that was expected.
I opened a PR to update the protos, but the response by the maintainer of ibc-go suggests to me that they intend for having the height in the header be the actual fix (cosmos/ibc-go#7303).
Issue ticket number and link
n/a
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: