Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.

Revert #2958 #3026

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Revert #2958 #3026

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

gilescope
Copy link
Contributor

@gilescope gilescope commented Aug 17, 2023

#2958 is causing some trouble with a few other PRs. There's some suggestion that we should revert it. This PR does this. We will re-add it as a series of PRs that should be less disruptive to other devs.

@gilescope gilescope added A2-insubstantial Pull request requires no code review (e.g., a sub-repository hash update). B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes C1-low PR touches the given topic and has a low impact on builders. D3-trivial 🧸 PR contains trivial changes in a runtime directory that do not require an audit labels Aug 17, 2023
@bkontur
Copy link
Contributor

bkontur commented Aug 17, 2023

causing some trouble with a few other PRs

Just out of curiosity, what troubles? Could you please link those PRs here?

@gilescope gilescope changed the title Potential: Revert #2958 Revert #2958 Aug 17, 2023
@gilescope
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sure, #3023 (holding up async backing being merged) and #2157 - unifying the xcm message queues. Both are things we want to land before monorepo.

@bkontur
Copy link
Contributor

bkontur commented Aug 17, 2023

#2157 ran one week ago with no failure: https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/cumulus/-/jobs/3355109
#2157 should be rebased on actual master and we will see if there is any failure,
or am I missing something here?

#3023 ok, has some errors: https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/cumulus/-/jobs/3403396, but why revert instead of fixing for async backing?

@gilescope
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebasing/merge master of #2157 does lead to a lot of conflicts (understandably).

@gilescope
Copy link
Contributor Author

But I think that you're right - #3023 is going to still be a problem even if we revert this changeset.

@rphmeier
Copy link
Contributor

instead of fixing for async backing?

Please do it if possible. I left a comment in #3023 about why this test harness is flaky & unrealistic, so it needs refactoring regardless. Unfortunately, I had to fix some of that unrealistic behavior in order to ensure the invariants of the ParachainSystem pallet in async-backing were upheld, and this caused downstream test failures.

@gilescope
Copy link
Contributor Author

Given that people have found workarounds for now we will keep this in, and improve on what's there in upcoming PRs.

@gilescope gilescope closed this Aug 17, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
A2-insubstantial Pull request requires no code review (e.g., a sub-repository hash update). B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes C1-low PR touches the given topic and has a low impact on builders. D3-trivial 🧸 PR contains trivial changes in a runtime directory that do not require an audit
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants