Skip to content
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

Release proto definitions v1 #9445

Closed
3 of 4 tasks
robert-zaremba opened this issue Jun 2, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed
3 of 4 tasks

Release proto definitions v1 #9445

robert-zaremba opened this issue Jun 2, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
C: Proto Proto definition and proto release

Comments

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

Summary

With Stargate we created proto definitions for all our modules. They are all marked as beta, but the whole ecosystem is getting to use them and expects stability.

Ref: #9182 (comment)

Problem Definition

There is an adoption and perception risk of sticking to beta release mode forever. Stargate was release few months ago and we should move forward with core module proto stability.

Proposal

Go out of beta for core proto definitions and release 1.0


For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged
  • Contributor assigned/self-assigned
@robert-zaremba robert-zaremba added the C: Proto Proto definition and proto release label Jun 2, 2021
@robert-zaremba robert-zaremba added this to the Feature Backlog milestone Jun 2, 2021
@robert-zaremba robert-zaremba changed the title Release proto files v1 Release proto definitions v1 Jun 2, 2021
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2021
<!--
The default pull request template is for types feat, fix, or refactor.
For other templates, add one of the following parameters to the url:
- template=docs.md
- template=other.md
-->

## Description

This ADR is to be merged as "DRAFT" status for now, as the details for the "Bumping Protobuf Package Version" section have not been sorted out yet.

This ADR comes from discussion with @webmaster128 and @robert-zaremba about proto updates strategy. We decided to go for an ADR to document our decision for v0.43, and for visibility for other chains doing proto upgrades.

[rendered](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/am/adr-044-protobuf/docs/architecture/adr-044-protobuf-updates-guidelines.md)

Closes: #9477
ref: #9446 
ref: #9445

<!-- Add a description of the changes that this PR introduces and the files that
are the most critical to review. -->

---

### 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...

- [x] included the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title
- [ ] added `!` to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
- [x] targeted the correct branch (see [PR Targeting](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#pr-targeting))
- [ ] provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
- [ ] followed the guidelines for [building modules](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/docs/building-modules)
- [ ] included the necessary unit and integration [tests](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing)
- [ ] added a changelog entry to `CHANGELOG.md`
- [ ] included comments for [documenting Go code](https://blog.golang.org/godoc)
- [ ] updated the relevant documentation or specification
- [x] 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...

- [x] confirmed the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title
- [x] 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
- [x] reviewed documentation is accurate
- [ ] reviewed tests and test coverage
- [ ] manually tested (if applicable)
@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Aug 15, 2021
@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Shall we bump the proto versions for 0.44? In the past we decided to bump it all, but then we had new discussions.
cc: @aaronc , @AmauryM

@amaury1093
Copy link
Contributor

For me the bumping path is still not well defined (within the SDK and with client libs), so my personal preference is to keep 0.44 smaller and discuss this for 0.45.

@webmaster128
Copy link
Member

Can this be done for 0.45? Otherwise we get even more changes to the v1beta1 version and nobody knows anymore what is actually available in 0.42, 0.44 and 0.45 backends.

@aaronc
Copy link
Member

aaronc commented Oct 19, 2021

Version numbers should not be the way that clients know what is available in given backends. We will not be bumping proto versions with every release just to indicate that there is a new release. Instead we will aim to provide backwards compatible proto files with the same proto version for as many SDK versions as possible. Clients should use grpc reflection and the cosmos reflection service to understand what queries and messages are actually supported on a given backend.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C: Proto Proto definition and proto release
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants