refactor: use timeout_timestamp in unordered txs #23734
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
C:x/staking
C:CLI
C:x/gov
C:x/slashing
C:x/distribution
…chnicallyty/STA-118/timeout_height_time_based
github-actions
bot
removed
C:x/staking
C:x/gov
C:x/slashing
C:x/distribution
Co-authored-by: Alex | Interchain Labs <[email protected]>
…://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk into technicallyty/STA-118/timeout_height_time_based
…chnicallyty/STA-118/timeout_height_time_based
| TimeoutHeight: body.TimeoutHeight, | ||
| TimeoutTimestamp: body.TimeoutTimestamp, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it looks like in the flags file we are replacing TimeoutHeight with TimeoutTimestamp but here we allow the use of both?
Maybe we still want to include the flag for a timeout height as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the original intent was to introduce a small break to the client to push them towards using the better design of timestamp timeouts. https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/pull/20870/files#r1686279283.
which makes sense to me - however im unsure if this is a substantial break to make or not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should support all available flags since people might be relying on them and we cannot remove them from the proto anyways
There was a problem hiding this comment.
…chnicallyty/STA-118/timeout_height_time_based
Description
backports ddf9e18
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...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.mdReviewers 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.
Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.
I have...