Skip to content
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

[CORE-852] Re-apply dYdX changes from 0.50.1 on top of 0.50.3 #35

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jan 22, 2024

Conversation

lcwik
Copy link

@lcwik lcwik commented Jan 17, 2024

Description

Re-apply dYdX changes from 0.50.1 on top of 0.50.3


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • run make lint and make test
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

prettymuchbryce and others added 11 commits January 17, 2024 09:05
* Fix lint/gocritic error

* Disable some workflow jobs
This change pushes the mutex that was in the local client to the top level of the ABCI methods and uses the unsynchronized local client. A future change is intended to reduce the critical sections of the various ABCI methods.

We also replace cometbft usage with dYdX fork.
This change makes a copy of `runTx` and does the following:
* moves transaction descoding and tx validation before lock acquisition
* moves creation of the response after releasing the lock
* removes support for the post handler (unused by dYdX) and extracts out the only code that is executed in `runMsgs` allowing us to avoid the creation of the `runMsgCtx` and its associated `MultiStore`
* removes `consumeBlockGas` since it is only executed during `deliverTx`
ctx.Done() support was added in 0.50 with cosmos#15041
server start up time was removed in 0.50 with cosmos#15041
Copy link

@lcwik your pull request is missing a changelog!

@lcwik lcwik changed the title Re-apply dYdX changes from 0.50.1 on top of 0.50.3 [CORE-852] Re-apply dYdX changes from 0.50.1 on top of 0.50.3 Jan 17, 2024
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ is performed. Note, when enabled, gRPC will also be automatically enabled.
}

err = wrapCPUProfile(serverCtx, func() error {
return start(serverCtx, clientCtx, appCreator, withCMT, opts)
return start(cmd.Context(), serverCtx, clientCtx, appCreator, withCMT, opts)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For my understanding why was this needed (asking because I don't see this change in https://github.com/dydxprotocol/cosmos-sdk/pull/30/files)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is to allow the caller to shutdown cosmos using the context that is associated with the command.

It was added later in b48250d

@lcwik lcwik merged commit fbb2683 into dydx-fork-v0.50.3 Jan 22, 2024
37 of 41 checks passed
@lcwik lcwik deleted the lukecore538 branch January 22, 2024 17:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants