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

further validation for _IBC data files #379

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 25, 2022
Merged

further validation for _IBC data files #379

merged 3 commits into from
May 25, 2022

Conversation

boojamya
Copy link
Contributor

This PR adds further validation for json files in the _IBC folder.

Workflow has been tested on a fork.

It performs three validations:

  • validates that the json file name has two "strings" separated by a hyphen (-) and ends with ".json"
  • validates that chain_1 and chain_2 used in the file name are in alphabetical order
  • validates that the chain-name for chain-1 and chain-2 inside the json file match the order used in the file name

Consider merging before #369 ?

@JeremyParish69
Copy link
Collaborator

love the idea, @boojamya . Could we and should we add verifying that the chain names used are folders that exist in the chain reg? Or would that be too limiting (in case we want to add for a chain that isn't registered)?

@boojamya
Copy link
Contributor Author

boojamya commented May 24, 2022

I don't think it's completely necessary but happy to add it in!
Your call here. Easy add.

@JeremyParish69
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't think it's completely necessary but happy to add it in! Your call here. Easy add.

Alright, let's do it. Thanks

@boojamya
Copy link
Contributor Author

@JeremyParish69 Done!

@boojamya boojamya merged commit d5610e3 into master May 25, 2022
@tac0turtle tac0turtle deleted the dan/ibc_checks branch October 19, 2022 08:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants