shielded-pool(ics20): process truncated addresses in packet data #4962
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Why can't the pcli command just use the`FullViewingKey::transparent_address()" method to create the address? |
|
Good idea! This feels kind of an API cheat code, I am curious to understand why the IVK doesn't allow building a transparent |
redshiftzero
approved these changes
Dec 16, 2024
erwanor
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2024
## Describe your changes This PR makes sure that truncated addresses are encoded correctly when ICS20 withdrawals are marshaled into fungible packet data. In addition to that, it modifies pcli to (hazardously?) handcraft a return `Address` with an identity clue key and zero diversifier. To test this PR, one can performa IBC roundtrip against a testnet chain with broken bech32m handling (e.g, `grand-1`). ## Issue ticket number and link #4950 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > CB release branch.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2024
## Describe your changes This PR makes sure that truncated addresses are encoded correctly when ICS20 withdrawals are marshaled into fungible packet data. In addition to that, it modifies pcli to (hazardously?) handcraft a return `Address` with an identity clue key and zero diversifier. To test this PR, one can performa IBC roundtrip against a testnet chain with broken bech32m handling (e.g, `grand-1`). ## Issue ticket number and link #4950 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > CB release branch.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2024
## Describe your changes This PR makes sure that truncated addresses are encoded correctly when ICS20 withdrawals are marshaled into fungible packet data. In addition to that, it modifies pcli to (hazardously?) handcraft a return `Address` with an identity clue key and zero diversifier. To test this PR, one can performa IBC roundtrip against a testnet chain with broken bech32m handling (e.g, `grand-1`). ## Issue ticket number and link #4950 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > CB release branch.
erwanor
commented
Dec 19, 2024
| .encode_as_transparent_address() | ||
| .unwrap_or_else(|| ordinary_return_address) | ||
| } else { | ||
| ordinary_return_address |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, this removed compat support in the protocol.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2024
## Describe your changes This PR makes sure that truncated addresses are encoded correctly when ICS20 withdrawals are marshaled into fungible packet data. In addition to that, it modifies pcli to (hazardously?) handcraft a return `Address` with an identity clue key and zero diversifier. To test this PR, one can performa IBC roundtrip against a testnet chain with broken bech32m handling (e.g, `grand-1`). ## Issue ticket number and link #4950 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > CB release branch. (cherry picked from commit c4ab7d7)
erwanor
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2024
## Describe your changes This PR makes sure that truncated addresses are encoded correctly when ICS20 withdrawals are marshaled into fungible packet data. In addition to that, it modifies pcli to (hazardously?) handcraft a return `Address` with an identity clue key and zero diversifier. To test this PR, one can performa IBC roundtrip against a testnet chain with broken bech32m handling (e.g, `grand-1`). ## Issue ticket number and link #4950 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > CB release branch. (cherry picked from commit c4ab7d7)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
This PR makes sure that truncated addresses are encoded correctly when ICS20 withdrawals are marshaled into fungible packet data.
To test this PR, one can performa IBC roundtrip against a testnet chain with broken bech32m handling (e.g,
grand-1).Issue ticket number and link
#4950
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: