Spec - New ValidatorRegistration/ValidatorExit duties stop old ones #317
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This reverts commit f14bfd0.
GalRogozinski
requested review from
MatheusFranco99,
moshe-blox,
alonmuroch,
liorrutenberg and
MatusKysel
moshe-blox
approved these changes
Nov 5, 2023
alonmuroch
requested changes
Nov 5, 2023
| @@ -234,9 +234,10 @@ func (b *BaseRunner) hasRunningDuty() bool { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func (b *BaseRunner) ShouldProcessDuty(duty *types.Duty) error { | |||
| if b.QBFTController.Height >= qbft.Height(duty.Slot) && b.QBFTController.Height != 0 { | |||
| // assume StartingDuty is not nil if state is not nil | |||
| if b.State != nil && b.State.StartingDuty.Slot >= duty.Slot { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just add b.QBFTController != nill check?
Why change it to the above which changes the whole logic
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While fixing the issue I thought about making things better.
- In general each validator duty runner can run only one duty at a time.
- There is no real reason to make rule (1) dependent on QBFT controller. If we do separation of concerns and processes it is unclear why the runner has to even have access to the internal state of QBFT controller.
- With my current change all duties (including the ones that aren't beacon duties) follow the exact same pattern. Because of the special exemptions we did to duties with no QBFT we ran into this issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added a fallback that uses QBFTController just to get this approved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From my perspective, indeed, the change makes module separation better and avoids the problem with the validator registration and exit duties
| } | ||
| r.BaseRunner.baseSetupForNewDuty(duty) | ||
| return r.executeDuty(duty) | ||
| return r.BaseRunner.baseStartNewDuty(r, duty) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is r.executeDuty removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
baseStartNewDuty calls it
|
Replaced by #318 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Stalling ValidatorRegistration/ValidatorExit duties prevented the execution of new duties. Now when a duty that fits a higher slot comes in it stops the old one.
Affected tests
post_wrong_decided- Deleted. Seems to be a duplicate ofpost_future_decided. Unclear what "wrong" means in the context.post_future_decided- renamed toold_slot_duty. Now that we don't support future messages this is a more fitting name. Cases for missing duties added.Added missing cases to:
consensus_not_started,duplicate_duty_finished,duplicate_duty_not_finished, andfinished.