Add development chain-spec file for minimal/parachain templates for Omni Node compatibility #6529

EleisonC · 2024-11-18T18:45:05Z

Description

This PR adds development chain specs for the minimal and parachain templates. #6334

Integration

This PR adds development chain specs for the minimal and para chain template runtimes, ensuring synchronization with runtime code. It updates zombienet-omni-node.toml, zombinet.toml files to include valid chain spec paths, simplifying configuration for zombienet in the parachain and minimal template.

Review Notes

Overview of Changes:

Added development chain specs for use in the minimal and parachain template.
Updated zombienet-omni-node.toml and zombinet.toml files in the minimal and parachain templates to include paths to the new dev chain specs.

Integration Guidance:
NB: Follow the templates' READMEs from the polkadot-SDK master branch. Please build the binaries and runtimes based on the polkadot-SDK master branch.

Ensure you have set up your runtimes parachain-template-runtime and minimal-template-runtime
Ensure you have installed the nodes required ie parachain-template-node and minimal-template-node
Set up Zombinet
For running the parachains, you will need to install the polkadot cargo install --path polkadot remember from the polkadot-SDK master branch.
Inside the template folders minimal or parachain, run the command to start with Zombienet with Omni Node, Zombienet with minimal-template-node or Zombienet with parachain-template-node

Include your leftover TODOs, if any, here.

Test the syncing of chain specs with runtime's code.

cla-bot-2021 · 2024-11-18T18:45:12Z

User @EleisonC, please sign the CLA here.

…adot-sdk into add-dev-chain-spec

This reverts commit 80669c1.

iulianbarbu

Thanks @EleisonC ! Left a few comments for now.
Looking forward to the README updates & btw, have you clarified how to make a rust test for the chain specs?

templates/minimal/zombienet.toml

templates/parachain/zombienet.toml

EleisonC · 2024-11-20T13:55:29Z

Thanks @EleisonC ! Left a few comments for now. Looking forward to the README updates & btw, have you clarified how to make a rust test for the chain specs?

Hey @iulianbarbu that is what I am looking into today. Do you have any pointers you'd like me to know as I move forward?

iulianbarbu · 2024-11-20T14:06:34Z

Thanks @EleisonC ! Left a few comments for now. Looking forward to the README updates & btw, have you clarified how to make a rust test for the chain specs?

Hey @iulianbarbu that is what I am looking into today. Do you have any pointers you'd like me to know as I move forward?

From the top of my head I thought about adding an integration test. You could build a ChainSpec as described here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/templates/parachain/node/src/chain_spec.rs#L36, and then call as_json -> and then convert it to serde_json::Value, and then read the newly added file and load its content as a serde_json::Value and then compare the two.

EleisonC · 2024-11-21T06:10:50Z

Hey @iulianbarbu one last question it's okay if I placed the test folder/file under the nodes folder/file. if not is there a better place

iulianbarbu · 2024-11-21T09:37:35Z

Hey @iulianbarbu one last question it's okay if I placed the test folder/file under the nodes folder/file. if not is there a better place

Hmm, thought about placing it under runtime initially. I think it makes more sense to place it under runtime so that if anything changes here, running the tests for the crate would fail because the changes will not be inline with dev_chain_spec.json. The node uses the logic defined in the runtime, so it would benefit from the runtime test, but not directly. I don't think we need to add a test on the same lines in the templates' nodes crate either because these nodes aren't depending on the dev_chain_spec.json file. Only OmniNode depends on this file being in sync with the runtime, and that not because it would fail otherwise, but because it would start an outdated version.

EleisonC · 2024-11-25T14:19:51Z

From the top of my head I thought about adding an integration test. You could build a ChainSpec as described here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/templates/parachain/node/src/chain_spec.rs#L36, and then call as_json -> and then convert it to serde_json::Value, and then read the newly added file and load its content as a serde_json::Value and then compare the two.

Hey @iulianbarbu regarding comparing the two I am a bit stuck on what to compare. From my research I would think it's other the code or value of top
Is it the value of code? Because the test fails when I compare the code value of the two chain spec files.
let test_runtime_code = test_json_value // .get("genesis") // .expect("failed to extract genesis") // .get("runtimeGenesis") // .expect("failed to extract runtimeGenesis from genesis") // .get("code") // .expect("failed to extract code from runtimeGenesis");
But the code value of test_runtime and the existing file do not match. Hence wondering if it would be the Top value to or maybe I am missing a step of conversion somewhere

EleisonC · 2024-11-26T02:54:35Z

From the top of my head I thought about adding an integration test. You could build a ChainSpec as described here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/templates/parachain/node/src/chain_spec.rs#L36, and then call as_json -> and then convert it to serde_json::Value, and then read the newly added file and load its content as a serde_json::Value and then compare the two.

Hey @iulianbarbu regarding comparing the two I am a bit stuck on what to compare. From my research I would think it's other the code or value of top Is it the value of code? Because the test fails when I compare the code value of the two chain spec files. let test_runtime_code = test_json_value // .get("genesis") // .expect("failed to extract genesis") // .get("runtimeGenesis") // .expect("failed to extract runtimeGenesis from genesis") // .get("code") // .expect("failed to extract code from runtimeGenesis"); But the code value of test_runtime and the existing file do not match. Hence wondering if it would be the Top value to or maybe I am missing a step of conversion somewhere

I figured out my problem was around decoding a Hex String to bytes. I can now properly traverse the values of the Top section and find the code for that spec file

iulianbarbu · 2024-11-27T12:45:36Z

From the top of my head I thought about adding an integration test. You could build a ChainSpec as described here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/templates/parachain/node/src/chain_spec.rs#L36, and then call as_json -> and then convert it to serde_json::Value, and then read the newly added file an

d load its content as a serde_json::Value and then compare the two.

Hey @iulianbarbu regarding comparing the two I am a bit stuck on what to compare. From my research I would think it's other the code or value of top Is it the value of code? Because the test fails when I compare the code value of the two chain spec files. let test_runtime_code = test_json_value // .get("genesis") // .expect("failed to extract genesis") // .get("runtimeGenesis") // .expect("failed to extract runtimeGenesis from genesis") // .get("code") // .expect("failed to extract code from runtimeGenesis"); But the code value of test_runtime and the existing file do not match. Hence wondering if it would be the Top value to or maybe I am missing a step of conversion somewhere

I figured out my problem was around decoding a Hex String to bytes. I can now properly traverse the values of the Top section and find the code for that spec file

Happy to hear you've sorted it out! I've noticed that in some tests we don't compare the code portions of the generated chain specs, and that's mainly because they are not super relevant for the test case. For this test though I think that it is relevant, to ensure generated chain specs correspond to the runtimes in the CI.

Some other good news is that once we'll have these chain specs we'll be able to easily run in the CI the omni_node_* tests like this one: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/templates/zombienet/tests/smoke.rs#L160. We can update them in a follow up, no need to consider them right now, but it is up to you.

As usual, LMK in case of blockers, happy to take a look.

Signed-off-by: EleisonC <[email protected]>

EleisonC · 2024-11-27T22:47:09Z

Hey @iulianbarbu,
I added a test and would appreciate it if you could look at it and approve it before I add the one for the para chain. Additionally, I added the test folder to nodes because I was encountering setup issues.

iulianbarbu

Can you please regenerate the dev_chain_spec.json for minimal (for now) after building the minimal/runtime with cargo build? I wonder if you built the runtime with --release and then generated the dev_chain_spec.json. It makes sense according to the README, but we run the tests with the testnet profile, which enables the debug symbols, and I think the chain spec code section differs based on the profile. I would be curious to run the test again after you regenerate the dev_chain_spec.json, and also see if regenerating on my machine results in a different code section, or chain spec altogheter.

templates/minimal/node/tests/validate_dev_chain_spec.rs

templates/minimal/node/Cargo.toml

skunert · 2024-12-19T18:32:01Z

I am getting the same as your posted snippet from CI:

✨ Your Substrate WASM Runtime is ready! ✨
✨ WASM  : ./templates/minimal/runtime/target/srtool/release/wbuild/minimal-template-runtime/minimal_template_runtime.compact.wasm
✨ Z_WASM: ./templates/minimal/runtime/target/srtool/release/wbuild/minimal-template-runtime/minimal_template_runtime.compact.compressed.wasm
Summary generated with srtool v0.17.0 using the docker image paritytech/srtool:1.81.0:
 Package     : minimal-template-runtime v0.0.0
 GIT commit  : f0a3f18168f27f66f1cab052b402b67b0f4a5dd7
 GIT tag     : v1.16.0-approval-voting
 GIT branch  : add-dev-chain-spec
 Rustc       : rustc 1.81.0 (eeb90cda1 2024-09-04)
 Time        : 2024-12-19T18:25:29Z

== Compact
 Version          : minimal-template-runtime-0 (minimal-template-runtime-1.tx1.au1)
 Metadata         : V14
 Size             : 1004.33 kB (1028437 bytes)
 setCode          : 0x8dc8fbbdbc4fb058e076d915175b9363091f9af13cbaf2e78cdaa9bd6f94dc95
 authorizeUpgrade : 0xe91aed2e617f6243522dab081573bb50292877970bc83146e004eb8613cb0cc4
 IPFS             : QmU5nuekV7ca4ShAFU2uTgzz13jzEW3nAfPcwEFPFGHWsV
 BLAKE2_256       : 0xf80020328d1afd7bbb88effab38bbfdaab67868cc7e94c66abe4e10da17e96e5
 Wasm             : ./templates/minimal/runtime/target/srtool/release/wbuild/minimal-template-runtime/minimal_template_runtime.compact.wasm

== Compressed
 Version          : minimal-template-runtime-0 (minimal-template-runtime-1.tx1.au1)
 Metadata         : V14
 Size             : 262.30 kB (268593 bytes)
 Compression      : 73.89%
 setCode          : 0x6a57cc079da9f700700e64e55eb30d765b06caee2b307c10229d67eaf36cfac8
 authorizeUpgrade : 0x704531ce06cacf0c133e9f8644c534930509045848c9d8507dc626eb2c98e9d7
 IPFS             : QmXWdrLUvaM7ZQ9F6bUzKxUADfhWojU1y1MNichrozFci2
 BLAKE2_256       : 0x5a8dacd160f12a36fd0a7257606283baefbba77104cd67ced0b567b4407aa817
 Wasm             : ./templates/minimal/runtime/target/srtool/release/wbuild/minimal-template-runtime/minimal_template_runtime.compact.compressed.wasm

Did you maybe mix up your build command? I am using srtool build --package minimal-template-runtime --runtime-dir ./templates/minimal/runtime --root on your branch here. Please stop merging master, I think your are having a different issue this time.

EleisonC · 2024-12-19T18:40:05Z

Did you maybe mix up your build command? I am using srtool build --package minimal-template-runtime --runtime-dir ./templates/minimal/runtime --root on your branch here.

sorry should have added the commands srtool build --package minimal-template-runtime --runtime-dir ./templates/minimal/runtime --root is what I used same as the one you used @skunert

skunert · 2024-12-19T23:04:54Z

Hmm at this point its not really possible for me to say why you are ending up with a different hash. Have you merged master here in the PR but not pulled to your local machine, so that you are on a different commit? Or your have local changes?

These issues aside, after thinking about it more I am against introducing this CI job. Everytime there is a minor change in any of the runtime related code of polkadot-sdk, the generated WASM blob will change, forcing developers to update this chain-spec constantly (because the job will fail).

A better way to handle this IMO is to just have the chainspec committed and update it manually. For sure this is annoying and the spec could potentially go out of sync. But having an extra CI job for it seems like overkill.

I am sorry for the work you have already put into the CI job. Can you please remove it?

…adot-sdk into add-dev-chain-spec

EleisonC · 2024-12-20T16:50:19Z

Hmm at this point its not really possible for me to say why you are ending up with a different hash. Have you merged master here in the PR but not pulled to your local machine, so that you are on a different commit? Or your have local changes?

Hey @skunert cc: @iulianbarbu . I appreciate the help and the time you were able to allocate to this. I want to first address this issue ☝️, After thorough testing, I can confirm that this issue has been resolved and the workflows run okay Workflow Run Personal Fork. The CI job and local development environments now consistently produce the same Blake2_256 hash for the runtime WASM blob, ensuring alignment with the Polkadot SDK master's Runtime determined using the Srtool.
cmd-ran srtool build --package minimal-template-runtime --runtime-dir ./templates/minimal/runtime --root

These issues aside, after thinking about it more I am against introducing this CI job. Everytime there is a minor change in any of the runtime related code of polkadot-sdk, the generated WASM blob will change, forcing developers to update this chain-spec constantly (because the job will fail).

A better way to handle this IMO is to just have the chainspec committed and update it manually. For sure this is annoying and the spec could potentially go out of sync. But having an extra CI job for it seems like overkill.

I am sorry for the work you have already put into the CI job. Can you please remove it?

I completely understand your concern regarding the added maintenance burden of a CI job that enforces frequent updates to the chain spec due to minor runtime changes. Your suggestion to commit the chain spec manually and update it as needed is reasonable; however, I'd like to propose an enhancement that maintains the benefits of automation while keeping the workflow lightweight and developer-friendly.

The CI pipeline can include a lightweight job
Add a job to verify if the code field inside the genesis section of the committed chain spec matches the corresponding field in the CI-generated spec file. If there's a mismatch, the job should fail with clear, actionable guidance for developers to update the chain spec. This balances automation and developer effort without introducing unnecessary overhead. This could be use full in situation where a runtime was probably build the wrong way or with outdated version of staging or diff srtool version used and might not realise.
Introduce a Shell script for easier updates
Provide a shell script to streamline the process of installing srtool, pulling updates, building, and updating the dev chain spec code. This simplifies the workflow for developers, requiring only a single executable shell script to update only requiring them to then push changes.
By leveraging this, the CI workflow can serve as an attestation mechanism to ensure that the dev chain is built using the same runtime as Polkadot SDK.

skunert · 2024-12-20T17:57:38Z

Hey,

the problem with (1) is that this will not break now and then when there is a change to the parachain template runtime, that would be okay. But polkadot-sdk is merging lots of commits per week. Imagine someone is creating a pull request to modify some log line here for example. In their pull request the CI job would fail because that code is a dependency of parachain-template-runtime and they would need to regenerate the chain-spec.

Whe question is also what the benefit of keeping the chain-spec up to date in polkadot-sdk really is. Once per release these two template repositories are synchronized with the current state of polkadot-sdk:

polkadot-parachain-template: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk-parachain-template
polkadot-minimal-template: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk-minimal-template

This is where I expect new users to go to try out these templates. Ideally, the job that synchronizes the templates with the polkadot-sdk would generate the chain-specs from the current runtime. This way, the chain-specs in the template repositories would be correct on every release.

I like your proposal of (2), having a script in the repo to generate these chainspecs. The flow could look like this:

Have a manually generated chain-spec in polkadot-sdk
Have a script that refreshes the chain-spec in polkadot-sdk (gets copied over to the template repos)
The job that syncs the code from here into the template repositories regenerates the chain-spec and makes sure that it is up-to-date in the template repos.

This way the chain-spec in the template repositories is always up-to-date and we don't have the burden of this constantly failing CI job.

iulianbarbu · 2025-01-06T08:53:09Z

Hey @EleisonC ! First of all, sorry for my silence, it has been the end of the year and I took some needed time off.

Second of all, I have to admit I totally missed the aspect of this CI job failing at every minor change done in polkadot-sdk, in any crate which is a dependency of any of the two runtimes (minimal or parachain). At this point I am leaning towards @skunert idea of dropping the CI job, considering it will bring attention with most PRs and its benefit - ensuring the chain specs that come with the templates are up to date for usage of templates based on polkadot-sdk repo, when we aim in fact for usage from their dedicated GH repos (e.g. https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk-parachain-template).

Generating the chain specs once in this job: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/.github/workflows/misc-sync-templates.yml should be enough IMO, from the point of view of ensuring up to date chain specs (in relation to the code found in their repo), and ease the use when it comes to OmniNode. LMK if you think differently.
I also believe the CI job effort can conclude nicely in this script you're proposing, which can be used anytime we want to update the chain specs for polkadot-sdk (as a nice to have, we can also print some notes right before the script is doing its thing, about the merging of master with the branch for the case of a PR, in case we want to update the chain spec as it would be done in CI), or when we generate the chain specs in the misc-sync-templates action. This script can install srtool if not present and check the environment looks fine (having at least podman installed). The script can be added as a follow up though (but it is your choice, given the misc-sync-templates.yml would contain similar commands, and could very well use a script that can do the same separately from the action).

Lastly, wanted to say that your work here was a great learning experience for me too. Would be happy to assist and review any followup changes if you can invest some more time here. LMK your thoughts.

EleisonC · 2025-01-06T17:25:14Z

Hey @EleisonC ! First of all, sorry for my silence, it has been the end of the year and I took some needed time off.

Hey @iulianbarbu I agree the time-off it is needed. I did the same. It was Christmas I bet it was enough haha. Information overload can happen quickly. 😅

Second of all, I have to admit I totally missed the aspect of this CI job failing at every minor change done in polkadot-sdk, in any crate which is a dependency of any of the two runtimes (minimal or parachain). At this point I am leaning towards @skunert idea of dropping the CI job, considering it will bring attention with most PRs and its benefit - ensuring the chain specs that come with the templates are up to date for usage of templates based on polkadot-sdk repo, when we aim in fact for usage from their dedicated GH repos (e.g. https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk-parachain-template).

Generating the chain specs once in this job: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/.github/workflows/misc-sync-templates.yml should be enough IMO, from the point of view of ensuring up to date chain specs (in relation to the code found in their repo), and ease the use when it comes to OmniNode. LMK if you think differently.

Based on this my Next steps are going to be to :

- Remove the current CI job that verifies chain specs
- Add chain spec generation to the misc-sync-templates.yml workflow
- Generate specs only during template synchronization
- Update the ReadMe

I also believe the CI job effort can conclude nicely in this script you're proposing, which can be used anytime we want to update the chain specs for polkadot-sdk (as a nice to have, we can also print some notes right before the script is doing its thing, about the merging of master with the branch for the case of a PR, in case we want to update the chain spec as it would be done in CI), or when we generate the chain specs in the misc-sync-templates action. This script can install srtool if not present and check the environment looks fine (having at least podman installed). The script can be added as a follow up though (but it is your choice, given the misc-sync-templates.yml would contain similar commands, and could very well use a script that can do the same separately from the action).

This can be done in another PR. Its still hints at one of the earlier solutions
Create a utility script that:
Installs srtool if not present
Verifies at least podman installation
Generates chain specs on demand
Prints informative notes about branch merging
Can be used both manually and by the sync workflow

Lastly, wanted to say that your work here was a great learning experience for me too. Would be happy to assist and review any followup changes if you can invest some more time here. LMK your thoughts.

This is work I am proud of and definitely committed to seeing through. Also, I appreciate your continued guidance and support it makes the process easier.

EleisonC · 2025-01-16T21:54:12Z

Hey @iulianbarbu, I’d love to hear your thoughts on my approach and whether it aligns with the expectations.
cc: @skunert – I would appreciate your perspective as well.

iulianbarbu

Hi @EleisonC ! This is very nice and looks about done, except a few things that can be improved.

I plan to sync the templates with stable2412 release today & hopefully this will work without significant issues. Once that's done you can read every template readme as if it would be part of the dedicated template repos. This is just as FYI, I don't think you need to change more than what I suggested with this review, for this PR.

Other than this, would be great to open an issue related to the script we've discussed about, where we'll apply all this learnings about how to generate reproducible chain specs, if needed.

.github/workflows/misc-sync-templates.yml

templates/minimal/README.md

iulianbarbu · 2025-01-17T10:35:24Z

templates/minimal/README.md

+For the most accurate chain spec generation,  `staging-chain-spec-builder` or other mentioned binaries and runtimes,
+please try to build them based on the Polkadot-sdk most updated master branch an example:
+  ```bash
+  cargo install --path substrate/bin/utils/chain-spec-builder
+  ```


This is a good note, but I wouldn't add it anymore. Latest staging-chain-spec-builder is good enough for what this readme needs: https://crates.io/crates/staging-chain-spec-builder

We also need --locked here. Please doublecheck all the install commands. cargo install by default does not use the lockfile.

iulianbarbu · 2025-01-17T10:37:27Z

templates/minimal/README.md

@@ -81,15 +95,18 @@ be used to run the minimal template's runtime. `polkadot-omni-node` binary crate

 Please see installation section on [crates.io/omni-node](https://crates.io/crates/polkadot-omni-node).

-#### Build `minimal-template-runtime`
+#### Build `minimal-template-runtime` (A reminder to  build on the most updated version of polkadot-sdk master)


We can remove the reminder addition. We still waant people to refer to the dedicated minimal-template repository, so building out of polkadot-sdk can be done, but isn't the user flow we're looking. This readme will end up in this minimal-template dedicated repo, so we shouldn't refer back to polkadot-sdk from there.

iulianbarbu · 2025-01-17T10:38:45Z

templates/minimal/README.md

+  ```bash
+  cargo install --path substrate/bin/utils/chain-spec-builder
+```

-Please see the installation section at [`crates.io/staging-chain-spec-builder`](https://crates.io/crates/staging-chain-spec-builder).
+Or Please see the installation section at [`crates.io/staging-chain-spec-builder`](https://crates.io/crates/staging-chain-spec-builder).


Better to revert this because we will assume this readme lives in https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk-minimal-template.

iulianbarbu · 2025-01-17T10:39:22Z

templates/parachain/README.md

+- 🔧 To simplify the process of using Zombienet with Omni Node, we’ve added a pre-configured
+development chain spec (dev_chain_spec.json) to the parachain template. Additionally,
+the zombienet-omni-node.toml file has been updated to include a valid chain spec path
+pointing to dev_chain_spec.json


Same as for minimal template

iulianbarbu · 2025-01-17T10:39:34Z

templates/parachain/README.md

+- For the most accurate chain spec generation,  `staging-chain-spec-builder` or other mentioned
+binaries and runtimes,please try to build them based on the Polkadot-sdk most updated master branch 
+an example:
+  ```bash
+  cargo install --path substrate/bin/utils/chain-spec-builder
+  ```
+
+


Same as for minimal template

iulianbarbu · 2025-01-17T13:10:29Z

Other than this I plan to sync the templates with stable2412 release today & hopefully this will work without significant issues.

Can't be done yet. Sync job is still failing because it tries to update the templates' repos Cargo.toml deps versions based on the stable2412 tag, which doesn't have a commited Plan.toml (it was added after the tag was made). We'll need to wait for the stable2412-1 planned for next week, its tag, and then try to sync again.

skunert

Looking really good, only minor nits!

Thanks again for seeing this through :)!

skunert · 2025-01-17T13:08:11Z

.github/workflows/misc-sync-templates.yml

+          run: |
+            sudo apt-get update
+            sudo apt-get install -y protobuf-compiler
+            cargo install --git https://github.com/chevdor/srtool-cli


Please add --locked to these git install commands.

skunert · 2025-01-17T13:09:22Z

templates/minimal/README.md

+For the most accurate chain spec generation,  `staging-chain-spec-builder` or other mentioned binaries and runtimes,
+please try to build them based on the Polkadot-sdk most updated master branch an example:
+  ```bash
+  cargo install --path substrate/bin/utils/chain-spec-builder
+  ```


We also need --locked here. Please doublecheck all the install commands. cargo install by default does not use the lockfile.

Co-authored-by: Iulian Barbu <[email protected]>

no need

EleisonC · 2025-01-18T22:50:43Z

Looking really good, only minor nits!

Thanks again for seeing this through :)!

Thank you for your guidance and feedback! I've addressed the minor nits. 😊

EleisonC added 5 commits November 16, 2024 23:26

Add development chain spec config

3743b9f

Add path chain_spec_path

1e833b4

Add path chain_spec_path

3345130

Add development chain spec for parachain template

97a1cc2

Update chain spec path

80669c1

EleisonC and others added 5 commits November 18, 2024 21:56

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

7a060c5

Merge branch 'add-dev-chain-spec' of https://github.com/EleisonC/polk…

91e0ba8

…adot-sdk into add-dev-chain-spec

Revert "Update chain spec path"

d97247d

This reverts commit 80669c1.

update chain_spec_path

301ab59

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

541b524

iulianbarbu self-requested a review November 19, 2024 15:03

iulianbarbu added T17-Templates This PR/Issue is related to templates T11-documentation This PR/Issue is related to documentation. labels Nov 19, 2024

iulianbarbu assigned EleisonC Nov 19, 2024

iulianbarbu added the R0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes label Nov 19, 2024

iulianbarbu reviewed Nov 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

templates/minimal/zombienet.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

templates/parachain/zombienet.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

EleisonC and others added 2 commits November 21, 2024 05:40

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

02e431e

remove chain spec path not required

0146534

EleisonC and others added 2 commits November 28, 2024 01:32

Add runtime test for minimal dev chain spec

14a32f1

Signed-off-by: EleisonC <[email protected]>

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

2c318e3

iulianbarbu reviewed Nov 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

f0a3f18

EleisonC added 2 commits December 20, 2024 04:18

fix dev chain spec diff

63ffef7

Merge branch 'add-dev-chain-spec' of https://github.com/EleisonC/polk…

da812f5

…adot-sdk into add-dev-chain-spec

EleisonC requested a review from iulianbarbu December 20, 2024 16:50

EleisonC and others added 8 commits January 6, 2025 20:25

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

eb4c8aa

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

da09ab4

intergrate chain spec creation into sync templates workflow

e21561e

remove chain spec verification workflow

6a01d91

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

d30ac61

update minimal readme

76a55d2

update parachain readme

1330a45

Merge branch 'master' into add-dev-chain-spec

503477d

iulianbarbu reviewed Jan 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

skunert reviewed Jan 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

EleisonC and others added 6 commits January 18, 2025 03:17

Update .github/workflows/misc-sync-templates.yml

fad8110

Co-authored-by: Iulian Barbu <[email protected]>

Update templates/minimal/README.md

3748999

Co-authored-by: Iulian Barbu <[email protected]>

changes

7c2988c

changes parachain readme

f6da52d

add --locked for consistent deps

e2bd3db

Update README.md

e96a0f9

no need

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add development chain-spec file for minimal/parachain templates for Omni Node compatibility #6529

Add development chain-spec file for minimal/parachain templates for Omni Node compatibility #6529

EleisonC commented Nov 18, 2024

cla-bot-2021 bot commented Nov 18, 2024

iulianbarbu left a comment

EleisonC commented Nov 20, 2024

iulianbarbu commented Nov 20, 2024

EleisonC commented Nov 21, 2024

iulianbarbu commented Nov 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

EleisonC commented Nov 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

EleisonC commented Nov 26, 2024

iulianbarbu commented Nov 27, 2024

EleisonC commented Nov 27, 2024

iulianbarbu left a comment

skunert commented Dec 19, 2024

EleisonC commented Dec 19, 2024

skunert commented Dec 19, 2024

EleisonC commented Dec 20, 2024

skunert commented Dec 20, 2024

iulianbarbu commented Jan 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

EleisonC commented Jan 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

EleisonC commented Jan 16, 2025

iulianbarbu left a comment •

edited

Loading

iulianbarbu Jan 17, 2025

skunert Jan 17, 2025

iulianbarbu Jan 17, 2025

iulianbarbu Jan 17, 2025

iulianbarbu Jan 17, 2025

iulianbarbu Jan 17, 2025

iulianbarbu commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

skunert left a comment

skunert Jan 17, 2025

skunert Jan 17, 2025

EleisonC commented Jan 18, 2025

Add development chain-spec file for minimal/parachain templates for Omni Node compatibility #6529

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add development chain-spec file for minimal/parachain templates for Omni Node compatibility #6529

Conversation

EleisonC commented Nov 18, 2024

Description

Integration

Review Notes

cla-bot-2021 bot commented Nov 18, 2024

iulianbarbu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

EleisonC commented Nov 20, 2024

iulianbarbu commented Nov 20, 2024

EleisonC commented Nov 21, 2024

iulianbarbu commented Nov 21, 2024 • edited Loading

EleisonC commented Nov 25, 2024 • edited Loading

EleisonC commented Nov 26, 2024

iulianbarbu commented Nov 27, 2024

EleisonC commented Nov 27, 2024

iulianbarbu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

skunert commented Dec 19, 2024

EleisonC commented Dec 19, 2024

skunert commented Dec 19, 2024

EleisonC commented Dec 20, 2024

skunert commented Dec 20, 2024

iulianbarbu commented Jan 6, 2025 • edited Loading

EleisonC commented Jan 6, 2025 • edited Loading

EleisonC commented Jan 16, 2025

iulianbarbu left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

iulianbarbu commented Jan 17, 2025 • edited Loading

skunert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

EleisonC commented Jan 18, 2025

iulianbarbu commented Nov 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

EleisonC commented Nov 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

iulianbarbu commented Jan 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

EleisonC commented Jan 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

iulianbarbu left a comment •

edited

Loading

iulianbarbu commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading