configuration: drop pvf_checking_enabled parameter

[slumber]

Follow-up for #7138, simply removes unused value from the config.

Part of #3211

[eskimor]

Another config migration - let's merge this with the other ones.

[slumber]

bot merge

[paritytech-processbot]

Error: Statuses failed for fb2c83f

[slumber]

bot merge

[paritytech-processbot]

Waiting for commit status.

[slumber]

CI for migrations actually fails with "corrupted state" error at active config key. However, it shows host config without pvf_checking_enabled value before the migration is applied, as if it was done several times. Looks confusing.

UPD: the reason is empty list of pending_configs. Will file a follow up to silence a warning.

[eskimor]

Another config migration - let's merge this with the other ones.

Hmm, this comment apparently did not make it through. @antonva @tdimitrov the other migrations now have to be adjusted again (bumped one version). Also @tdimitrov doesn't the storage migration issue we had (which was blocking the other PR) not also affect this one? @slumber

[slumber]

Another config migration - let's merge this with the other ones.

Hmm, this comment apparently did not make it through. @antonva @tdimitrov the other migrations now have to be adjusted again (bumped one version). Also @tdimitrov doesn't the storage migration issue we had (which was blocking the other PR) not also affect this one? @slumber

My bad, got sidetracked several times and was busy debugging the CI issue. The summary is here #7489 (comment)

[tdimitrov]

Also @tdimitrov doesn't the storage migration issue we had (which was blocking the other PR) not also affect this one? @slumber

As far as I understand from the conversation in #7489 - it should be safe now because the UMP migration is already released (but not yet applied) for Polkadot.

But generally speaking you are right - UMP migration will fail if it is executed together with host config v7 AND before it.

EDIT: by fail I meant the try-runtime checks. I'm not sure if the actual migration will or will not fail as it just sets values we don't touch.

[tdimitrov]

The comment above is not correct. The UMP migration doesn't fail, the HostConfig V7 one fails. #7265 was supposed to introduce HostConfig V7 so I hadn't got the same problem back then.