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

deps: update to ics23 0.11.3 #4718

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 17, 2024
Merged

deps: update to ics23 0.11.3 #4718

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 17, 2024

Conversation

hdevalence
Copy link
Member

Describe your changes

Updates to ics23 0.11.3

Issue ticket number and link

Checklist before requesting a review

  • If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:

    No effect on consensus state as no IBC transactions have occurred and no changes in library other than bug fixes.

@zbuc
Copy link
Member

zbuc commented Jul 17, 2024

Are transitive dependencies such as ibc-types on ics23 a concern here?

@hdevalence
Copy link
Member Author

There's only one version of the ics23 crate in the workspace, and we can see from the lock file that it's set to the version we want. Cargo unifies compatible dependencies. This can also be verified using cargo tree -i ics23.

@conorsch conorsch merged commit e8bc0e0 into release/v0.79.x Jul 17, 2024
11 checks passed
@conorsch conorsch deleted the ics23-fix branch July 17, 2024 20:04
@faddat
Copy link

faddat commented Jul 25, 2024

If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:

awesome

conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 25, 2024
This commit ports the ics23 upgrade from the v0.79.x release branch into
main, so it's present going forward.

Updates to `ics23` `0.11.3`

- [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the
"consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there
are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:

> No effect on consensus state as no IBC transactions have occurred and
no changes in library other than bug fixes.

(cherry picked from commit e8bc0e0)
conorsch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2024
This commit ports the ics23 upgrade from the v0.79.x release branch into
main, so it's present going forward.

Updates to `ics23` `0.11.3`

- [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the
"consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there
are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:

> No effect on consensus state as no IBC transactions have occurred and
no changes in library other than bug fixes.

(cherry picked from commit e8bc0e0)
conorsch added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2024
## Describe your changes

The `v0.79.1` release contained two bug fixes:
https://github.com/penumbra-zone/penumbra/releases/tag/v0.79.1 Those
changes were committed directly to the `release/v0.79.x` branch:

* #4716
* #4718

Typically, we prepare fixes for the `main` branch, then backport them
via cherry-pick into the relevant release branch. That process wasn't
adhered to for 0.79.1, so I'm following up to ensure we have all the
relevant changes we need in main.

## Checklist before requesting a review

- [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the
"consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there
are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:

> These changes have already been released, as part of `v0.79.1` (and
therefore `v0.79.2`), so pulling them into main just ensures we don't
inadvertently unship them.

---------

Co-authored-by: Henry de Valence <[email protected]>
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.

4 participants