Skip to content

feat!: remove legacy handler#9650

Merged
mergify[bot] merged 16 commits intomasterfrom
aleem/7517-legacy-handler
Jul 19, 2021
Merged

feat!: remove legacy handler#9650
mergify[bot] merged 16 commits intomasterfrom
aleem/7517-legacy-handler

Conversation

@aleem1314
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@aleem1314 aleem1314 commented Jul 8, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Description

Closes: #7517
ref: comment

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

@aleem1314
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

aleem1314 commented Jul 8, 2021

@AmauryM I think we can also get rid of LegacyQuerier?

@amaury1093
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

amaury1093 commented Jul 8, 2021

@AmauryM I think we can also get rid of LegacyQuerier?

I would like to, but I'm not 100% sure. Maybe let's do this in another PR, because removing LegacyQuerier is a client-breaking change.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Jul 8, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Merging #9650 (b2cb096) into master (0027111) will increase coverage by 27.93%.
The diff coverage is 63.61%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9650       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   35.48%   63.41%   +27.93%     
===========================================
  Files         332      562      +230     
  Lines       32620    37382     +4762     
===========================================
+ Hits        11575    23706    +12131     
+ Misses      19819    11823     -7996     
- Partials     1226     1853      +627
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
client/keys/types.go 100.00% <ø> (+100.00%) ⬆️
client/query.go 16.98% <ø> (ø)
client/rpc/block.go 0.00% <ø> (ø)
client/rpc/status.go 67.74% <ø> (ø)
client/rpc/validators.go 0.00% <ø> (ø)
client/test_helpers.go 0.00% <ø> (ø)
client/tx/factory.go 27.00% <ø> (ø)
client/tx/legacy.go 68.42% <ø> (ø)
client/tx/tx.go 40.83% <ø> (ø)
client/utils.go 41.93% <ø> (-41.40%) ⬇️
... and 680 more

@aleem1314 aleem1314 requested review from amaury1093 and anilcse July 9, 2021 11:04
@aleem1314 aleem1314 marked this pull request as ready for review July 9, 2021 11:04
@aleem1314 aleem1314 requested review from atheeshp and tac0turtle July 9, 2021 11:04
alexanderbez
alexanderbez reviewed Jul 9, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@alexanderbez alexanderbez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we still need the Route() method on the AppModule interface?

@amaury1093
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

amaury1093 commented Jul 13, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Why do we still need the Route() method on the AppModule interface?

As with #9594 (comment), we have 2 choices here:

  1. Remove Route() from AppModule, but that's an api-breaking removal
  2. Deprecate Route(), remove implementations from the SDK. But if module developers still want to use legacy handlers, it still works (the legacy router still exists in baseapp).

I'm advocating for 2 here. AppModule is IMO the most important interface in the SDK; if we're breaking it, let's do it once together with the app wiring refactor.

amaury1093
amaury1093 reviewed Jul 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@amaury1093 amaury1093 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm at first glance, didn't review carefully yet

x/auth/vesting/module.go
// Route returns the module's message router and handler.
func (am AppModule) Route() sdk.Route {
return sdk.NewRoute(types.RouterKey, NewHandler(am.accountKeeper, am.bankKeeper))
return sdk.Route{}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@amaury1093 amaury1093 Jul 9, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we panic instead with a clear message "this method is deprecated and not implemented by the SDK anymore" ?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@alexanderbez alexanderbez Jul 13, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah returning just sdk.Route{} seems like it could lead to errors possibly? I'd recommend doing anything we can to encourage developers to not use deprecated functionality and panicing seems OK to me.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@aleem1314 aleem1314 Jul 14, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Adding panic is breaking RegisterRoutes. We are not registering empty router, I think returning sdk.Route{} is fine.

tac0turtle
tac0turtle approved these changes Jul 14, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@tac0turtle tac0turtle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@dadamu dadamu mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2021
Closed
amaury1093
amaury1093 approved these changes Jul 19, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@amaury1093 amaury1093 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 48cb9ea into master Jul 19, 2021
@mergify mergify bot deleted the aleem/7517-legacy-handler branch July 19, 2021 14:49
This was referenced Jul 4, 2022
Merged
Closed
@fadeev fadeev mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2022
Closed
@aljo242 aljo242 mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2023
Merged
1 task
@fadeev fadeev mentioned this pull request Apr 7, 2023
Merged
4 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@anilcse anilcse Awaiting requested review from anilcse

@aaronc aaronc Awaiting requested review from aaronc

@atheeshp atheeshp Awaiting requested review from atheeshp

3 more reviewers

@alexanderbez alexanderbez alexanderbez left review comments

@amaury1093 amaury1093 amaury1093 approved these changes

@tac0turtle tac0turtle tac0turtle approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@amaury1093 amaury1093

@atheeshp atheeshp

Labels

C:x/auth C:x/authz C:x/bank C:x/distribution distribution module related C:x/evidence C:x/feegrant C:x/gov C:x/mint C:x/params C:x/slashing C:x/staking C:x/upgrade

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove the legacy REST API

5 participants

@aleem1314 @amaury1093 @alexanderbez @tac0turtle @atheeshp