Skip to content

Drop version checks on SV-operator-only paths - #7040

Open
adetokunbo wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
adetokunbo/remove-redundant-version-checks
Open

adetokunbo wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
adetokunbo/remove-redundant-version-checks

Conversation

@adetokunbo

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Pull Request Checklist

Cluster Testing

  • If a cluster test is required, comment /cluster_test on this PR to request it, and ping someone with access to the DA-internal system to approve it.
  • If an upgrade test is required, comment /upgrade_test on this PR to request it, and ping someone with access to the DA-internal system to approve it.
  • If a hard-migration test is required (from the latest release), comment /hdm_test on this PR to request it, and ping someone with access to the DA-internal system to approve it.
  • If a logical synchronizer upgrade test is required (from canton-3.5), comment /lsu_test on this PR to request it, and ping someone with access to the DA-internal system to approve it.

PR Guidelines

  • Include any change that might be observable by our partners or affect their deployment in the release notes.
  • Specify fixed issues with Fixes #n, and mention issues worked on using #n
  • Include a screenshot for frontend-related PRs - see README or use your favorite screenshot tool

Merge Guidelines

  • Make the git commit message look sensible when squash-merging on GitHub (most likely: just copy your PR description).

@adetokunbo adetokunbo self-assigned this Sep 1, 2026
@adetokunbo
adetokunbo force-pushed the adetokunbo/remove-redundant-version-checks branch 3 times, most recently from 0f81f0f to 34c88cf Compare September 1, 2026 11:49
@adetokunbo
adetokunbo force-pushed the adetokunbo/remove-redundant-version-checks branch 2 times, most recently from ca6e096 to 01800b0 Compare September 10, 2026 04:35
@adetokunbo
adetokunbo marked this pull request as ready for review September 10, 2026 07:06
@adetokunbo
adetokunbo force-pushed the adetokunbo/remove-redundant-version-checks branch from 01800b0 to d2c38d7 Compare September 10, 2026 07:06

@rautenrieth-da rautenrieth-da left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we can remove these checks. Most of these checks are asking "has this random amulet owner vetted at least amulet version X", and we'll have validators/parties that have abandoned the network and are thus forever stuck at some ancient version.

We could remove some of them, for example those only checking the vetting state of SV operators (here assuming they are on a recent version makes more sense), but this has nothing to do with TBAR.

I would close #6388, and reassign the associated TODOs to #1825 (for the dso governance package) or remove them (for all other packages)

@adetokunbo adetokunbo changed the title Remove redundant version checks Drop version checks on SV-operator-only paths Sep 14, 2026
@adetokunbo
adetokunbo force-pushed the adetokunbo/remove-redundant-version-checks branch from d2c38d7 to cfd4ca2 Compare September 14, 2026 06:59
@adetokunbo

adetokunbo commented Sep 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Ah, understood. I've reverted most of the commits, and only removed the checks in a couple of places that only use dso or SV parties

  • supportsPhysicalSynchronizers
  • supports24hSubmissionDelayDsoGovernance

I also changed the TODO target.

Signed-off-by: Tim Emiola <adetokunbo@emio.la>
Signed-off-by: Tim Emiola <adetokunbo@emio.la>
Signed-off-by: Tim Emiola <adetokunbo@emio.la>
@adetokunbo
adetokunbo force-pushed the adetokunbo/remove-redundant-version-checks branch from cfd4ca2 to 954e0c1 Compare September 17, 2026 02:50

@rautenrieth-da rautenrieth-da left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This PR removes the following helpers:

  • supports24hSubmissionDelayDsoGovernance: used to check if sv/dso parties support dso governance 0.1.23, which should be true on all networks
  • supportsPhysicalSynchronizers: used to check if sv/dso parties support dso governance 0.1.24, which should be true on all networks

So the change makes sense to me. @cocreature can you please double check the above?

@moritzkiefer-da

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

supports24hSubmissionDelayDsoGovernance: used to check if sv/dso parties support dso governance 0.1.23, which should be true on all networks

makes sense to me!

@rautenrieth-da rautenrieth-da left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants