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

refactor: Move to x/tx package #14634

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 17, 2023
Merged

refactor: Move to x/tx package #14634

merged 9 commits into from
Jan 17, 2023

Conversation

amaury1093
Copy link
Contributor

@amaury1093 amaury1093 commented Jan 16, 2023

Description

ref: #14600

Simply move the contents of tx/ to x/tx.

In follow-ups, whenever it's useful we should:

  • move parts to types/tx and x/auth/tx to x/tx when interesting, and when they don't depend on the root sdk
  • create aliases on root sdk to keep backwards-compatibility

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
  • added ! to 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
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • 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.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

@amaury1093 amaury1093 marked this pull request as ready for review January 16, 2023 14:50
@amaury1093 amaury1093 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 16, 2023 14:50
Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This needs to be updated https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/94c2aff/.github/workflows/test.yml#L562-L590.
Could you go through this list: #14221?

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

types/tx and x/auth/tx to x/tx when interesting

Is there any reason why not do this now? Unless they depend on the SDK...?

@amaury1093
Copy link
Contributor Author

Unless they depend on the SDK...?

Yeah, quite heavily. I'll try to untangle those in follow-ups.

@amaury1093
Copy link
Contributor Author

amaury1093 commented Jan 16, 2023

@julienrbrt I think the checklist is done now, see c67abd0

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
module cosmossdk.io/tx
module cosmossdk.io/x/tx
Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt Jan 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A PR adding a new vanity url must be created here: https://github.com/cosmos/vanity.
We should possibly bundle the addition of x/nft and x/circuit there too.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm!

@julienrbrt
Copy link
Member

One tiny nit: changing the path here too https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/94c2aff/go.work.example#L13

Copy link
Contributor

@likhita-809 likhita-809 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants