You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I see that this endpoint retrieves the next sequence recv and I think that value is set on RecvPacket only for ordered channels. So I guess it returns 1 because the transfer channel is unordered and the next sequence recv has never been incremented after being initialized to 1 either in ChanOpenInit (here) or ChanOpenTry (here).
Expected Behaviour
No confusion regarding this undocumented feature.
Possible suggestion for a fix:
Just an idea: could it be set to null for unordered channels to avoid the confusion?
Version
Steps to Reproduce
For Admin Use
Not duplicate issue
Appropriate labels applied
Appropriate contributors tagged/assigned
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
adizere
changed the title
Confusion regarding
Confusion regarding next sequence recv
Jul 26, 2022
Thanks for opening the issue @adizere! I agree with the suggested fix of using null as a return on unordered channels. In golang, I believe null would be 0. Might be best to just change the return value in the gRPC for now
and then we declare and initialize to 0 the sequence and if the channel is ORDERED then we do the same thing that we're already doing to retrieve the sequence:
Summary
A relayer operator reported this confusion:
The answer, thanks for @crodriguezvega, was:
Expected Behaviour
No confusion regarding this undocumented feature.
Possible suggestion for a fix:
Version
Steps to Reproduce
For Admin Use
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: