-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 95
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refine minor improvements #239
Conversation
@GNaD13 @vuong177 Interchain Tests workflow action fails due to the following error. Do you have any idea how to resolve this?
|
@anhductn2001 could you check the ghrc problem? I think we need to add @jaybxyz to centauri repo ghrc. |
Ok, Let me see! Seem like login ghcr.io step was success. |
I think the problem maybe come from your source repo @jaybxyz. We can temporarily skip this test! |
I think it is known issue. It seems like a lot of devs are experiencing the same / similar issue. Let me try some of the solutions and see if it works.
permissions:
contents: read
packages: write
References |
@vuong177 @anhductn2001 Can you reference this https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/26274#discussioncomment-3251137 and try to see if it works? Otherwise, i don't know how to resolve this strange issue.
|
I'm pretty sure we have write permission set for it. This is an issue related to Github Action that I recently encountered when creating a PR to a repository from our Notional-labs fork source. |
@anhductn2001 Are you trying something to resolve this issue in #243 ? I've tried to add an explicit permission but it didn't resolve. See 5076078. |
Yes, @jaybxyz. I just add permission in another place. Can you merge master to your branch? |
@anhductn2001 It doesn't seem to resolve the issue. What else can we try? Some suggests to create a new Docker image |
Perhaps this is a Github issue. I think first let's review and merge it to master. Because |
@anhductn2001 What is the protocol regarding the review process? Am I allowed to merge after at least one reviewer has completed their review? |
I think we should need 2 approvals. Let's wait @vuong177 review it! |
@@ -70,10 +70,6 @@ func (ms msgServer) FundModuleAccount(goCtx context.Context, req *types.MsgFundM | |||
|
|||
func (ms msgServer) AddAccountToFundModuleSet(goCtx context.Context, req *types.MsgAddAccountToFundModuleSet) (*types.MsgAddAccountToFundModuleSetResponse, error) { | |||
ctx := sdk.UnwrapSDKContext(goCtx) | |||
err := req.ValidateBasic() | |||
if err != nil { | |||
return nil, errorsmod.Wrapf(types.ErrValidationMsg, "invalid req msg %v - err %v", req, err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good catch! we don't duplicate SDK process!
Refine minor improvements
Description
This PR refines minor improvements:
NewBaseKeeper
it is set with governance module account inapp.go
)AddAccountToFundModuleSet
as stateless check is already done duringCheckTx
.ValidateBasic
forMsgAddAccountToFundModuleSet
. It was validating the same address twice.types.ModuleName
throughout the modules instead of constant value. Notice that theratelimit
module was havingtransfermiddleware
value in itstx.go
.Please, feel free to let me know if there are other minor improvements that can be made in this PR. I am happy to contribute.