contracts: Fix incorrect storage alias in mirgration (#1687)

# Description

We are recently trying to upgrade our Substrate version from
`polkadot-v0.9.43` to `polkadot-v1.0.0` and we noticed a critical issue:
all deployed contracts seem to be experiencing a `CodeNotFound` error.
After a thorough investigation, it appears that the root cause of this
issue lies in the mismatch between the storage alias of `CodeInfoOf<T>`
in the migration and its original definition.

This PR corrects the storage alias to align it with its original
definition

I am uncertain about the proper approach for adding tests to this
change. Would the team consider taking over this PR to bring it to
completion?

---------

Co-authored-by: pgherveou <pgherveou@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Kevin Wang
2023-09-25 21:13:11 +08:00
committed by GitHub
parent c0a4ce1fc8
commit e8da320734
3 changed files with 28 additions and 2 deletions
@@ -328,6 +328,32 @@ impl<T: Config, const TEST_ALL_STEPS: bool> OnRuntimeUpgrade for Migration<T, TE
);
Ok(Default::default())
}
#[cfg(feature = "try-runtime")]
fn post_upgrade(_state: Vec<u8>) -> Result<(), TryRuntimeError> {
if !TEST_ALL_STEPS {
return Ok(())
}
log::info!(target: LOG_TARGET, "=== POST UPGRADE CHECKS ===");
// Ensure that the hashing algorithm is correct for each storage map.
if let Some(hash) = crate::CodeInfoOf::<T>::iter_keys().next() {
crate::CodeInfoOf::<T>::get(hash).expect("CodeInfo exists for hash; qed");
}
if let Some(hash) = crate::PristineCode::<T>::iter_keys().next() {
crate::PristineCode::<T>::get(hash).expect("PristineCode exists for hash; qed");
}
if let Some(account_id) = crate::ContractInfoOf::<T>::iter_keys().next() {
crate::ContractInfoOf::<T>::get(account_id)
.expect("ContractInfo exists for account_id; qed");
}
if let Some(nonce) = crate::DeletionQueue::<T>::iter_keys().next() {
crate::DeletionQueue::<T>::get(nonce).expect("DeletionQueue exists for nonce; qed");
}
Ok(())
}
}
/// The result of running the migration.