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

fix(baseapp)!: Halt at height now does not produce the halt height block (backport #21256) #21322

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 16, 2024

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Aug 16, 2024

Description

In the issue linked, it is described how the behavior changed from previous versions to v0.50.x, in which we now produce the halt height block and then halt. This PR reverts this change to avoid producing the halt height block, meaning that if the halt-height is 100, the block 99 will be committed while block 100 not.

Closes: #21226


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, you can find examples of the prefixes below:

  • confirmed ! in 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

  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary

  • included the necessary unit and integration tests

  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md

  • updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code

  • 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.

Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced halting conditions for the application to include equality checks for block height and timestamp.
    • Clarified behavior of the halt height feature to prevent commitment of blocks at the halt height.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Updated test cases to ensure accurate evaluation of new halting conditions, improving the reliability of the application’s lifecycle management.
  • Documentation

    • Improved clarity on the halt height feature and overall system behavior in the CHANGELOG.

This is an automatic backport of pull request #21256 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

…ock (#21256)

(cherry picked from commit e2ec889)

# Conflicts:
#	CHANGELOG.md
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Aug 16, 2024

Cherry-pick of e2ec889 has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/release/v0.52.x/pr-21256
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/release/v0.52.x'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit e2ec889bb.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   baseapp/abci.go
	modified:   baseapp/abci_test.go

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   CHANGELOG.md

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

@mergify mergify bot requested a review from a team as a code owner August 16, 2024 08:24
@mergify mergify bot added the conflicts label Aug 16, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Aug 16, 2024

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Base branches to auto review (1)
  • main

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share
Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@julienrbrt your pull request is missing a changelog!

@julienrbrt julienrbrt enabled auto-merge (squash) August 16, 2024 08:47
@julienrbrt julienrbrt merged commit ce55ced into release/v0.52.x Aug 16, 2024
69 of 72 checks passed
@julienrbrt julienrbrt deleted the mergify/bp/release/v0.52.x/pr-21256 branch August 16, 2024 08:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants