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

Investigate ibc-go-test behaviour with inactive validators #2150

Open
p-offtermatt opened this issue Aug 19, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Investigate ibc-go-test behaviour with inactive validators #2150

p-offtermatt opened this issue Aug 19, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
scope: testing Code review, testing, making sure the code is following the specification. source: codereview To indicate an issue found during a code review.

Comments

@p-offtermatt
Copy link
Contributor

Problem

Reported by @sainoe

The ibc-go test suite uses the staking module to get historical information here:
https://github.com/cosmos/ibc-go/blob/7e01c9149149b9d4b1d871e58eb88a22f15bdb3c/testing/chain.go#L403

This might become inaccurate after the inactive validators feature. A short investigation is needed to determine how/whether we need to adjust.

Our understanding at this point is that this does not have an impact on the behaviour in production; it should just affect tests.

Closing criteria

It is clear whether and where changes need to be made to ensure the behaviour with inactive validators is accurate in ibc-go tests.

@p-offtermatt p-offtermatt added the scope: testing Code review, testing, making sure the code is following the specification. label Aug 19, 2024
@mpoke mpoke added the source: codereview To indicate an issue found during a code review. label Sep 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
scope: testing Code review, testing, making sure the code is following the specification. source: codereview To indicate an issue found during a code review.
Projects
Status: 🤔 F1: Investigate
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants