fix: make client response fields public + remove reduntant `QueryConnectionChannelsRequest`

cosmos / ibc-rs

Rust implementation of the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol.

Apache License 2.0

182 stars 74 forks source link

fix: make client response fields public + remove reduntant `QueryConnectionChannelsRequest` #1139

Closed Farhad-Shabani closed 3 months ago

Farhad-Shabani commented 3 months ago

Closes: #XXX

Description

As a follow-up to PR #1129, this PR fixes some small inconsistencies.

PR author checklist:

[X] Tagged one reviewer who will be the one responsible for shepherding this PR.

Reviewer checklist:

[ ] Reviewed Files changed in the GitHub PR explorer.
[ ] Manually tested (in case integration/unit/mock tests are absent).

codecov[bot] commented 3 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 64.06%. Comparing base (49e907a) to head (984f5cd).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1139 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 64.02% 64.06% +0.03% ========================================== Files 217 217 Lines 21061 21049 -12 ========================================== Hits 13484 13484 + Misses 7577 7565 -12 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

rnbguy commented 3 months ago

Good catches! Additionally, I realized:

impl Protobuf<RawType> for DomainType is not required.
request.rs only requires impl TryFrom<RawType> for DomainType.
response.rs only requires impl From<DomainType> for RawType.

Farhad-Shabani commented 3 months ago

Good catches! Additionally, I realized:

impl Protobuf<RawType> for DomainType is not required.

request.rs only requires impl TryFrom<RawType> for DomainType.

response.rs only requires impl From<DomainType> for RawType.

From the host's perspective, we definitely only need the conversion direction you mentioned. However, it's crucial that these types also cater to relayers, so we'll need to ensure the other direction is well-supported too.

Regarding Protobuf, I'm still leaning towards implementing it because it offers integrators convenient access to some useful encode/decode methods.

rnbguy commented 3 months ago

it's crucial that these types also cater to relayers

Regarding Protobuf, I'm still leaning towards implementing it because it offers integrators convenient access to some useful encode/decode methods.

Ah. I see. In that case, I am totally fine implementing these. But I mentioned this because this requirement is not maintained for all domain<>raw types.

Shouldn't we implement impl Protobuf<RawType> for DomainType for all?

Farhad-Shabani commented 3 months ago

Shouldn't we implement impl Protobuf<RawType> for DomainType for all?

Correct. Currently, we haven't been able to implement that for all cases. I've explained the reason in the ibc-query's README. We are in discussions with the ibc-go team to update the request protobuf definitions, incorporating the query height in relevant types. Therefore, we'll need to wait until that change is applied.

rnbguy commented 3 months ago

@Farhad-Shabani Thanks for your responses. Now everything is good :slightly_smiling_face: