8000 Rename package back to tendermint/tendermint and use replace to point… by lasarojc · Pull Request #351 · cometbft/cometbft · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Rename package back to tendermint/tendermint and use replace to point… #351

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Feb 21, 2023
Merged

Rename package back to tendermint/tendermint and use replace to point… #351

merged 8 commits into from
Feb 21, 2023

Conversation

lasarojc
Copy link
Contributor
@lasarojc lasarojc commented Feb 15, 2023 •
edited
Loading

… to the current repo (revert #192 and #156 ). This way the repo can be a real drop-in replacement for TM Core, using replace.

for file in `find . \( ! -regex '.*/\..*' \) -type f \( -name "*.go" -o -name "*.proto" \)  `
do
  sed -i '' "s/cometbft\/cometbft\//tendermint\/tendermint\//g" $file
done

gofmt -l -s -w .
make proto-gen
make mockery

PR checklist

  • Tests written/updated
  • Changelog entry added in .changelog (we use unclog to manage our changelog)
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/ or spec/) and code comments

@lasarojc lasarojc requested a review from a team as a code owner February 15, 2023 18:11
@lasarojc lasarojc marked this pull request as draft February 15, 2023 18:11
@thanethomson
Copy link
Contributor

Is it not possible to just revert the commits that introduced the change initially? i.e. by doing a git revert from the v0.34.x branch of the commits associated with the following PRs and in the following order:

(Not sure if there are any other relevant PRs?)

@lasarojc lasarojc self-assigned this Feb 16, 2023
@codecov
Copy link
codecov bot commented Feb 16, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Base: 48.40% // Head: 48.33% // Decreases project coverage by -0.08% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (abe800d) compared to base (38abebd).
Patch coverage: 66.66% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head abe800d differs from pull request most recent head 78498aa. Consider uploading reports for the commit 78498aa to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files 
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           v0.34.x     #351      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    48.40%   48.33%   -0.08%     
===========================================
  Files          280      280              
  Lines        49887    49887              
===========================================
- Hits         24150    24113      -37     
- Misses       23878    23911      +33     
- Partials      1859     1863       +4
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
abci/client/client.go 70.45% <ø> (ø)
abci/client/grpc_client.go 0.00% <ø> (ø)
abci/client/local_client.go 0.00% <ø> (ø)
abci/client/socket_client.go 43.88% <ø> (ø)
abci/example/kvstore/helpers.go 100.00% <ø> (ø)
abci/example/kvstore/kvstore.go 51.68% <ø> (ø)
abci/example/kvstore/persistent_kvstore.go 49.10% <ø> (ø)
abci/types/pubkey.go 0.00% <ø> (ø)
abci/types/types.pb.go 3.27% <ø> (ø)
behaviour/peer_behaviour.go 75.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 107 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

julienrbrt added a commit to cosmos/cosmos-sdk that referenced this pull request Feb 16, 2023
@julienrbrt
bump commit based on github.com/cometbft/cometbft/pull/351
961eda6
@lasarojc
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is it not possible to just revert the commits that introduced the change initially? i.e. by doing a git revert from the v0.34.x branch of the commits associated with the following PRs and in the following order:

(Not sure if there are any other relevant PRs?)

You are right. The changes made effectively revert #192 and #156.
There is no need to revert #108 as it just renames aliases and variable names.

@lasarojc lasarojc marked this pull request as ready for review February 16, 2023 11:06
thanethomson
thanethomson reviewed Feb 16, 2023
View reviewed changes
sergio-mena
sergio-mena reviewed Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
sergio-mena
sergio-mena approved these changes Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor
@sergio-mena sergio-mena left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please take a look at the suggestions above

lasarojc
lasarojc commented Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
lasarojc
lasarojc commented Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
lasarojc
lasarojc commented Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
lasarojc
lasarojc commented Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
lasarojc
lasarojc commented Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
lasarojc
lasarojc commented Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
@sergio-mena sergio-mena merged commit a059b06 into v0.34.x Feb 21, 2023
@sergio-mena sergio-mena deleted the lasarojc/keep-branches-backward-compatible branch February 21, 2023 12:54
@sergio-mena sergio-mena mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2023
Merged
3 tasks
julienrbrt added a commit to cosmos/cosmos-sdk that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2023
@julienrbrt
bump commit based on github.com/cometbft/cometbft/pull/351
9feeb1c
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@thanethomson thanethomson thanethomson left review comments

@sergio-mena sergio-mena sergio-mena approved these changes

Assignees

@lasarojc lasarojc

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@lasarojc @thanethomson @sergio-mena
0