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

Resolve "this last check is only necessary if we do full verification (2/3)" comment #281

Closed
greg-szabo opened this issue May 25, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
light-client Issues/features which involve the light client
Milestone

Comments

@greg-szabo
Copy link
Member

TODO: this last check is only necessary if we do full verification (2/3) but the
above checks should actually happen always (even if we skip forward)

The above comment was introduced lite_impl/signed_header.rs during the Tendermint v0.33 upgrade in this PR

During the code review, it was pointed out that it should go somewhere else.
Anton also commented on it here.

During the CommitSig refactor it came up again so I opened this issue to track it and eventually get rid of it for good.

@ebuchman ebuchman added this to the Light Node milestone Jun 3, 2020
@ebuchman ebuchman added the light-client Issues/features which involve the light client label Jun 3, 2020
@brapse
Copy link
Contributor

brapse commented Jun 10, 2020

Although this references a lot of context it is unclear how actionable this is. Can we please update the description to be a context free description of what the actual problem is and how it can be remedied?

@ebuchman
Copy link
Member

This comment is in the lite_impl module which will be deprecated/deduplicated ala #342. This kind of issue (ie. checks in full verification that arent in the overlap/bisection verification) will be ultimately dealt with by #377 . So closing for those.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
light-client Issues/features which involve the light client
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants