Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #735 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 44.50% 59.03% +14.53%
===========================================
Files 37 38 +1
Lines 4402 4670 +268
===========================================
+ Hits 1959 2757 +798
+ Misses 2443 1913 -530
|
| traits::{IdentifyAccount, Verify}, | ||
| }; | ||
| const SAFE_XCM_VERSION: u32 = xcm::v2::VERSION; | ||
| const SAFE_XCM_VERSION: u32 = xcm::latest::VERSION; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wouldn't it be better to have the fixed version here to prevent future updates of xcm to be unwillingly brought to the codebase?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Hounsette The latest version of XCM would only be considered safe if we have done a full upgrade and supports that version. Bringing the safe version from a particular version was the source of some tricky upgrade issues.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@aliXsed using the change below (if it is even possible) might allow us to avoid some border effects in case we have an oversight.
| const SAFE_XCM_VERSION: u32 = xcm::latest::VERSION; | |
| const SAFE_XCM_VERSION: u32 = xcm::v3::VERSION; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just for reference, we discussed the cons and pros of going for the latest. Since we have had other places where the xcm definitions are fetched from the latest and we don't see any particular safety issue right now based on supporting the latest xcm that has officially brought to the scope of out code base, we decided to leave this here as it is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some minor comments, looking good otherwise. @aliXsed do you know if we have any migrations to include?
| type CallStack = [Frame<Self>; 5]; | ||
| type AddressGenerator = pallet_contracts::DefaultAddressGenerator; | ||
| type MaxCodeLen = ConstU32<{ 128 * 1024 }>; | ||
| type MaxCodeLen = ConstU32<{ 123 * 1024 }>; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reasons why this is getting lowered?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I follow the contracts system parachain and the fact that they have gone for a lower value here could be due to some safety analysis. We'd better go for the lower and increase it in the future when we have evaluated all the cons and pros.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes of course - I was wondering as to why they did the change, not necessarily if we should do it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like Parity's team figured it would be appropriate to document the limits and safe values in the not so well known integrity_test function. https://paritytech.github.io/substrate/master/src/pallet_contracts/lib.rs.html#323-386
Co-authored-by: Eliott Teissonniere <10683430+ETeissonniere@users.noreply.github.com>
3 participants
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.