Closed yrashk closed 6 years ago
@yrashk could you please clarify a bit the method you are using? I went through the delta and, think, got quite confused.
@yrashk @rstormsf do you think the set of changes could be reduced and logic will be more straightforward if we change CollectedSignatures
event to:
CollectedSignatures(address authorityResponsibleForRelay, bytes32 messageHash, uint256 NumberOfCollectedSignatures);
So, in this case we don't need to watch for RequiredSignaturesChanged()
event and don't need to call requiredSignatures()
through RPC at all.
@akolotov do you mean CollectedSignatures(address authorityResponsibleForRelay, bytes32 messageHash, uint256 NumberOfRequiredSignatures)
?
I think this will greatly simplify bridge's code. Any thoughts on potential ways this can go wrong, though? Just to be on the safe side.
I don't see any problems
@yrashk yes. This event was extended today under https://github.com/poanetwork/poa-bridge-contracts/pull/41.
and
I updated this PR to use this new functionality. It has simplified this part of the bridge significantly!
master with #93 has been tagged as v0.2.1
@yrashk could you confirm that these changes has no conflicts and can be committed to master?
@akolotov Yes, it has no conflicts and passes tests when attempted to merge into master (I just verified)
Thank you! I will merge this PR in this case.
Validators' information is completely configured through validators contracts and does not depend on
authorities.required_signatures
parameter of bridge's configuration.The number of validators also could be changed during run-time and therefore
authorities.required_signatures
parameter will not reflect the actual number of signatures required for transaction validation.Solution: retrieve required_signatures from RequiredSignaturesChanged event and requiredSignatures() method
Closes #74