a4e592ee43
## Description This pr is meant to capture a conversation in slack and propose it to the community. The updated flow reduces boilerplate code and decreases the amount of duplicated validations happening. --- ### Author Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and please add links to any relevant follow up issues.* I have... - [ ] included the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [ ] added `!` to the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [ ] targeted the correct branch (see [PR Targeting](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#pr-targeting)) - [ ] provided a link to the relevant issue or specification - [ ] followed the guidelines for [building modules](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/main/docs/docs/building-modules) - [ ] included the necessary unit and integration [tests](https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing) - [ ] added a changelog entry to `CHANGELOG.md` - [ ] included comments for [documenting Go code](https://blog.golang.org/godoc) - [ ] updated the relevant documentation or specification - [ ] reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary - [ ] confirmed all CI checks have passed ### Reviewers Checklist *All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.* I have... - [ ] confirmed the correct [type prefix](https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/v3.0.0/index.json) in the PR title - [ ] confirmed `!` in the type prefix if API or client breaking change - [ ] confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed - [ ] reviewed state machine logic - [ ] reviewed API design and naming - [ ] reviewed documentation is accurate - [ ] reviewed tests and test coverage - [ ] manually tested (if applicable) |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| _category_.json | ||
| README.md | ||
| rfc-001-tx-validation.md | ||
| rfc-template.md | ||
| sidebar_position |
|---|
| 1 |
Requests for Comments
A Request for Comments (RFC) is a record of discussion on an open-ended topic related to the design and implementation of the Cosmos SDK, for which no immediate decision is required.
The purpose of an RFC is to serve as a historical record of a high-level discussion that might otherwise only be recorded in an ad-hoc way (for example, via gists or Google docs) that are difficult to discover for someone after the fact. An RFC may give rise to more specific architectural decisions for the Cosmos SDK, but those decisions must be recorded separately in Architecture Decision Records (ADR).
As a rule of thumb, if you can articulate a specific question that needs to be answered, write an ADR. If you need to explore the topic and get input from others to know what questions need to be answered, an RFC may be appropriate.
RFC Content
An RFC should provide:
- A changelog, documenting when and how the RFC has changed.
- An abstract, briefly summarizing the topic so the reader can quickly tell whether it is relevant to their interest.
- Any background a reader will need to understand and participate in the substance of the discussion (links to other documents are fine here).
- The discussion, the primary content of the document.
The rfc-template.md file includes placeholders for these sections.