Hotfix LIT/DOT Holder VC #2795
Hotfix LIT/DOT Holder VC #2795
Conversation
|
This PR bumps the version too The (parachain) runtime version is bumped retroactively - our tee-prod has 9181 already, which was upgraded manually when we reverted the NoEligibleIdentity PR which resulted in a different error type |
| @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ pub fn request_achainable( | |||
| ) | |||
| })?; | |||
|
|
|||
| Ok(false) | |||
| Ok(result) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well spot, but this issue was not introduced in AbortStrategy refactoring PR (because the AbortStrategy PR doesn't try to alter any existing logic in general) but it actually this was already like this before the AbortStrategy PR: https://github.com/litentry/litentry-parachain/pull/2707/files#diff-c23f6a3018245418b1a8d1c1dc7187aeae2c92785b32294c437e46849be35aaeR114, i.e. the original implementation might have problems since day 1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see - thanks.
I'm wondering if it ever worked before - including our data provider test. cc @0xverin @BillyWooo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Kailai-Wang @higherordertech
I think it worked before .
Context
It may fix other VCs incidentally too.
The root cause is we missed one place during the AbortStrategy refactoring, so it always returns
false.I also don't think we need metadata for
query_system_labelorcheck_achainable_label(btw what are the differences between these?), with metadata I could get response that consists of 10000 lines of JSON...Additionally, I think
total_transactionsdoesn't need metadata eitherBut please double-check it @higherordertech @zhouhuitian