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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Backport missing functionalities for cumulus #2176

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 6, 2023
Merged

Backport missing functionalities for cumulus #2176

merged 7 commits into from
Nov 6, 2023

Conversation

EgorPopelyaev
Copy link
Contributor

This PR backports missing PR's needed for 1.3.0 cumulus release:
#2042
#2139
#2129
#1967
#2021
#1887
#2023

bkontur and others added 7 commits November 3, 2023 12:17
@bkontur @EgorPopelyaev
[testnet] Align testnet system parachain runtimes using `RelayTreasur…
bc5a768 
…yLocation` and `SystemParachains` in the same way (#2023)

This PR addresses several issues:
- simplify referencing `RelayTreasuryLocation` without needing
additional `RelayTreasury` struct
- fix for referencing `SystemParachains` from parachain with `parents:
1` instead of `parents: 0`
- removed hard-coded constants and fix tests for `asset-hub-rococo`
which was merged to master after
#1726

---------

Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
@Morganamilo @sergejparity
@bkchr @EgorPopelyaev
Add ci check for parity-publish and fix current check issues (#1887)
33f7987 
Co-authored-by: Sergejs Kostjucenko <85877331+sergejparity@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Bastian Köcher <info@kchr.de>
@serban300 @EgorPopelyaev
Direct XCM ExportMessage fees for different bridges to different re…
73c51a3 
…ceiver accounts (#2021)
@bkontur @acatangiu
@joepetrowski @EgorPopelyaev
[testnet] Add AssetHubRococo <-> AssetHubWestend asset bridging s…
78ef6b9 
…upport (#1967)

## Summary

Asset bridging support for AssetHub**Rococo** <-> AssetHub**Wococo** was
added [here](#1215), so
now we aim to bridge AssetHub**Rococo** and AssetHub**Westend**. (And
perhaps retire AssetHubWococo and the Wococo chains).

## Solution

**bridge-hub-westend-runtime**
- added new runtime as a copy of `bridge-hub-rococo-runtime`
- added support for bridging to `BridgeHubRococo`
- added tests and benchmarks

**bridge-hub-rococo-runtime**
- added support for bridging to `BridgeHubWestend`
- added tests and benchmarks
- internal refactoring by splitting bridge configuration per network,
e.g., `bridge_to_whatevernetwork_config.rs`.

**asset-hub-rococo-runtime**
- added support for asset bridging to `AssetHubWestend` (allows to
receive only WNDs)
- added new xcm router for `Westend`
- added tests and benchmarks

**asset-hub-westend-runtime**
- added support for asset bridging to `AssetHubRococo` (allows to
receive only ROCs)
- added new xcm router for `Rococo`
- added tests and benchmarks

## Deployment

All changes will be deployed as a part of
#1988.

## TODO

- [x] benchmarks for all pallet instances
- [x] integration tests
- [x] local run scripts


Relates to:
paritytech/parity-bridges-common#2602
Relates to: #1988

---------

Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
Co-authored-by: joe petrowski <25483142+joepetrowski@users.noreply.github.com>
@serban300 @bkontur
XCM MultiAssets: sort after reanchoring (#2129)
aa0ea96 
Fixes #2123
@svyatonik @bkontur
[testnet] Allow governance to control fees for Rococo <> Westend brid…
644a1e3 
…ge (#2139)

Right now governance could only control byte-fee component of Rococo <>
Westend message fees (paid at Asset Hubs). This PR changes it a bit:
1) governance now allowed to control both fee components - byte fee and
base fee;
2) base fee now includes cost of "default" delivery and confirmation
transactions, in addition to `ExportMessage` instruction cost.
@bkontur @acatangiu
Removed TODO from test-case for hard-coded delivery fee estimation (#…
44b9020 
…2042)

Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
@EgorPopelyaev EgorPopelyaev requested review from bkontur and a team November 6, 2023 13:15
@EgorPopelyaev EgorPopelyaev requested review from a team as code owners November 6, 2023 13:15
@paritytech-review-bot paritytech-review-bot bot requested a review from a team November 6, 2023 13:15
@bkchr
Copy link
Member

bkchr commented Nov 6, 2023

This PR backports missing PR's needed for 1.3.0 cumulus release:

Why do we need to backport this for "cumulus release". Whatever a "cumulus release" is.

@acatangiu can you explain?

@acatangiu
Copy link
Contributor

I believe this PR is prerequisite to release Rococo<>Westend bridge and deploy it on the testnets from released artifacts rather than master builds - @EgorPopelyaev to confirm

@acatangiu
Copy link
Contributor

although I was expecting these to go to official polkadot v1.3.0 release which is still in construction afaict

I admit, I don't know what the exact purpose of release-cumulus-v1.3.0 branch is..

@EgorPopelyaev can shed some light

@bkchr
Copy link
Member

bkchr commented Nov 6, 2023

deploy it on the testnets from released artifacts rather than master builds

When is the deploy gonna happen?

@EgorPopelyaev
Copy link
Contributor Author

@acatangiu yep, to my understanding this was needed to be able to do this release. This branch exist to build cumulus node to separate it from the polakdot build

@EgorPopelyaev EgorPopelyaev added the R0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes label Nov 6, 2023
@acatangiu
Copy link
Contributor

deploy it on the testnets from released artifacts rather than master builds

When is the deploy gonna happen?

ASAP. I was hoping it was already live last week. It's now a matter of deployment.
I am ok with even deploying images from master or this release-cumulus-v1.3.0 branch instead of doing a release, but this is ultimately devops decision since they need to operate the nodes :)

@acatangiu acatangiu merged commit e990078 into release-cumulus-v1.3.0 Nov 6, 2023
118 of 123 checks passed
@acatangiu acatangiu deleted the epo-backport-cumulus branch November 6, 2023 16:45
@bkchr
Copy link
Member

bkchr commented Nov 6, 2023

but this is ultimately devops decision since they need to operate the nodes

This is clearly not a devops decision. I don't see any problem in running an image from master in a TESTNET. Can we please stop with this? Releases are already not on time and we backport things... If you need to run this, then take an image from master....

This branch exist to build cumulus node to separate it from the polakdot build

What? Is this done every time? Why?

@EgorPopelyaev
Copy link
Contributor Author

It was not a devops decision. @bkontur has mentioned that the asset-hub-rococo chain_id has changed and it can impact the polkadot-parachain node, that's why it would be needed to be backported. But I totally agree that this kind of backports should be avoided.

The initial idea of separate branches came up for such cases: if there will be needed some specific changes for cumulus which is not related to polkadot, they will be done in the cumulus branch and won't affect the polkadot. But maybe this strategy is obsolete, and we can avoid it and use just one branch

@bkchr
Copy link
Member

bkchr commented Nov 6, 2023

The initial idea of separate branches came up for such cases: if there will be needed some specific changes for cumulus which is not related to polkadot, they will be done in the cumulus branch and won't affect the polkadot. But maybe this strategy is obsolete, and we can avoid it and use just one branch

Yes this is obsolete.

bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 13, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
1131c86 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 14, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
57368d5 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 15, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
cedb54c 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 15, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
2cb7de5 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 15, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
5b62eaf 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 15, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
ac4c351 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
bf6af2d 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 17, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
e746521 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 17, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
db6f2f3 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 17, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
0011396 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 20, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
93778a8 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 21, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
631b11d 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 22, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
cf40e0c 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 23, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
8491652 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 30, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
cb6a61e 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 4, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
e15c4d0 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
161e5ca 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
bkontur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 7, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Improve receive_messages_proof benchmarks accuracy (#2176)
3dfe87b 
* Adjust messages pallet benchmarks

* Address comment
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@bkontur bkontur bkontur approved these changes

@acatangiu acatangiu acatangiu approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
R0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@EgorPopelyaev @bkchr @acatangiu @bkontur @Morganamilo @serban300 @svyatonik