You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently just adding an empty substorage for ongoing use is considered a state change, resulting in a new root hash. It means that there must conceptually be a transaction to add a new empty substorage. When we upgrade applications, there might be cases where a new module with its own state is introduced. And this behavior introduces some hassles.
I'm not sure if this problem is solved if we can add an empty substorage without a transaction and the state changes only upon a change to the substorage. But it might be so.
We need to inspect this problem at least when we design the on-chain governance and upgrade scheme.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently just adding an empty substorage for ongoing use is considered a state change, resulting in a new root hash. It means that there must conceptually be a transaction to add a new empty substorage. When we upgrade applications, there might be cases where a new module with its own state is introduced. And this behavior introduces some hassles.
I'm not sure if this problem is solved if we can add an empty substorage without a transaction and the state changes only upon a change to the substorage. But it might be so.
We need to inspect this problem at least when we design the on-chain governance and upgrade scheme.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: