Clean up git dependencies

[ggwpez]

Tasks

Beta Give feedback

1. simple-mermaid used here
2. ethabi-decode used here
3. bandersnatch_vrfs used here
4. milagro_bls from here

[davxy]

For bandernatch (cc @swasilyev):

• Publish https://github.com/w3f/fflonk
• Publish https://github.com/w3f/ring-proof
• Introduce ark-ec-vrfs

[bkontur]

there is also an issue for ethabi-decode here: paritytech/parity-bridges-common#2775
(afaik, Vincent will work on it)

cc: @vgeddes @claravanstaden

[vgeddes]

Ack, yes, I'll publish ethabi-decode and milagro-bls this week. Thanks for the reminder.

[vgeddes]

I've published them:

• https://crates.io/crates/ethabi-decode
• https://crates.io/crates/snowbridge-milagro-bls

We will update our cumulus/bridges/snowbridge subtree next week which will include these changes.

[Morganamilo]

From a crates perspective. Our tooling with auto strip optional git depends or switch git dependencies to crates.io if a compatible version exists. Meanwhile git deps with no crates.io releases are totally unpublishable. So releasing milagro_bls is high priority to me as it made some crates unpublishable on the last release.

[claravanstaden]

@Morganamilo thanks for the info. As @vgeddes mentioned, the crates are published and I have updated their usages in this PR: #3029

[ggwpez]

@Morganamilo Which crates would still blocked after #3029 and by what?

[Morganamilo]

That was the only crate I had issue with. Checking again, it was named milagro_bls on my end but I only see snowbridge-milagro-bls on crates.io. I guess the crate was renamed but that didn't make the release window and I got the old name?

[claravanstaden]

Exactly, @Morganamilo.

[claravanstaden]

Hey @Morganamilo! I was expecting the snowbridge crates to be updated with the polkadot-sdk 1.7.0 release, but it looks like the crates are still empty: https://crates.io/crates/snowbridge-pallet-inbound-queue/0.0.0

Will you let know if there is an issue with the publishing, or any other problem?

[ggwpez]

I think the crate publishing takes a while - we are also rate limited by crates-io. You can check here if stuff is being published https://crates.io/users/parity-crate-owner?sort=recent-updates

[Morganamilo]

Is there anything blocking simple mermaid? Would moving to 0.1.1 work or do we need features that are unreleased?

[ggwpez]

Yea 0.1.1 should include my fix.
I will try to remove it here in the repo. PS: #3304

[ggwpez]

Done now @Morganamilo

[bkchr]

We require some CI check that prevents adding git dependencies for crates that are already released.

milagro_bly from here

We should not care about this stuff. We should not release external crates.

[ggwpez]

We should not care about this stuff. We should not release external crates.

WDYM? Having git dependencies is bad for our tooling. So they should be banned in general.
Ah nvm. with "crates that are already released" you probably meant our crates, not external ones 👍

[bkchr]

WDYM? Having git dependencies is bad for our tooling. So they should be banned in general.

I meant that the linked crate belongs to snowbridge. We as Parity should not release snowbride crates.

[ggwpez]

I meant that the linked crate belongs to snowbridge. We as Parity should not release snowbride crates.

Yes sure. That is why snowfork team is help us with this. Thanks Vincent and Clara.

[claravanstaden]

We published that crates, yes. It will remain the Snowbridge team's responsibility.

[ggwpez]

It looks like litep2p is now being pulled in. @lexnv do you think it would be possible to use crates-io releases?
We can otherwise not properly release the sc-network crates that depend on it.

[ggwpez]

Going to close this since the remaining bandersnatch dep is feature gated and there not blocking the release process.
A CI check is also in place to prevent the addition of new git deps.