Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix!: handle some panics #2205

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 3, 2024
Merged

fix!: handle some panics #2205

merged 4 commits into from
Sep 3, 2024

Conversation

mpoke
Copy link
Contributor

@mpoke mpoke commented Sep 3, 2024

Description

Closes: #XXXX

  • remove panic from getTotalPower
  • remove panics from EndBlockVSU

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • Included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • Added ! to the type prefix if the change is state-machine breaking
  • Confirmed this PR does not introduce changes requiring state migrations, OR migration code has been added to consumer and/or provider modules
  • Targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • Provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • Followed the guidelines for building SDK modules
  • Included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • Added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • Included comments for documenting Go code
  • Updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • Reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • Confirmed all CI checks have passed
  • If this PR is library API breaking, bump the go.mod version string of the repo, and follow through on a new major release

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! the type prefix if the change is state-machine breaking
  • confirmed this PR does not introduce changes requiring state migrations, OR confirmed migration code has been added to consumer and/or provider modules
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage

@mpoke mpoke requested a review from a team as a code owner September 3, 2024 08:10
@github-actions github-actions bot added the C:x/provider Assigned automatically by the PR labeler label Sep 3, 2024
@@ -104,8 +111,8 @@ func (k Keeper) ProviderValidatorUpdates(ctx sdk.Context) []abci.ValidatorUpdate
for _, val := range bondedValidators[:maxValidators] {
nextValidator, err := k.CreateProviderConsensusValidator(ctx, val)
if err != nil {
k.Logger(ctx).Error("error when creating provider consensus validator", "error", err, "validator", val)
continue
return []abci.ValidatorUpdate{},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this returning an error now instead of simply logging? We want this to fail as a whole if we fail to create a single validator?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think so. Why would we fail to create a validator. If that happens, that's for sure something wrong with the state, right?

@@ -68,11 +68,14 @@ func TestQueueVSCPackets(t *testing.T) {
mocks := testkeeper.NewMockedKeepers(ctrl)
testkeeper.SetupMocksForLastBondedValidatorsExpectation(mocks.MockStakingKeeper, 0, []stakingtypes.Validator{}, 1)

mocks.MockStakingKeeper.EXPECT().GetBondedValidatorsByPower(gomock.Any()).Return([]stakingtypes.Validator{}, nil).AnyTimes()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this indented correctly? Looks like it's fully on the left in comparison to the others.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks fine to me.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

also fine for me, but gets confusing/wrong when I scale down the browser window

Copy link
Contributor

@bermuell bermuell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, beside the logic change in ProviderValidatorUpdates which would cause a halt instead of accepting this situation with a log I'm fine in general.
maybe worth to crosscheck with Philip if I miss an accepted corner case

Copy link
Contributor

@p-offtermatt p-offtermatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks ok to me, I only had a brief look though. I don't think the error instead of log really makes a difference

@mpoke mpoke added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 3, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 38320a2 Sep 3, 2024
14 of 15 checks passed
@mpoke mpoke deleted the marius/get-total-power branch September 3, 2024 15:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C:x/provider Assigned automatically by the PR labeler
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants