*: support extra dBFT stage #118
Merged
+1,182
−145
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
AnnaShaleva
force-pushed
the
add-postblock-handling
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a2d89af
to
01f9e6c
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #118 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 63.31% 59.35% -3.96%
==========================================
Files 27 32 +5
Lines 1510 1823 +313
==========================================
+ Hits 956 1082 +126
- Misses 489 661 +172
- Partials 65 80 +15 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
AnnaShaleva
force-pushed
the
add-postblock-handling
branch
3 times, most recently
from
3460b23
to
942dd05
Compare
doubiliu
reviewed
Jul 17, 2024
It will be reused by anti-MEV related dBFT interfaces implementations. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
AnnaShaleva
force-pushed
the
add-postblock-handling
branch
3 times, most recently
from
890c324
to
7d7004b
Compare
pre_block.go
Outdated
| Data() []byte // required | ||
| // SetData generates and sets PreBlock's data CNs need to exchange during Commit | ||
| // phase. | ||
| SetData(key PrivateKey) error // required |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What exactly do you want? GetData instead of Data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Usually getters/setters mean that something is wrong with the interface. Likely SetData can be avoided.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then it’s wrong with the old implementation because the logic is the same as for our old Commit.SetSignature() and Commit.Signature(). Need to check, maybe we can pass signature directly to the Commit constructor.
AnnaShaleva
force-pushed
the
add-postblock-handling
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1966e0a
to
659de52
Compare
Ref. #112. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
add-postblock-handling
branch
2 times, most recently
from
438f9df
to
d5baa08
Compare
Add custom PreBlock and Block interfaces implementation, custom Commit and CommitAck, adjust testing logic. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Technically, this is implied by d.ResponseSent(), but we still have BlockSent() check as well, so these don't hurt. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
It's done at the start of OnReceive() and it's even more strict there. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
It's a security event, this should never happen and we better know if it does. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
It's useless, we log tx number down below anyway. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Commit payloads can't be checked with PrepareRequest data only in AMEV case, we don't yet have a complete header. So check them after we have enough PreCommit payloads. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Be a bit more optimistic about the message (similar to how onPrepareResponse() works). Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Supposedly AMEV code will do its magic here and it doesn't need to do it twice. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
For a single height/view there is a single proper hash and it's not a final block hash, likely logging it won't help much. Can be done in future if needed, but let's have view number for now. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
start() was designed to be called at every view change, but looks like it _never_ worked this way. Which means two things: * on every view change Primary doesn't send PrepareRequest during initialization (which is mostly OK, OnTimeout() will be triggered immediately with 0 timeout) * our future message caching system has never really worked since start() is the only place where messages can be picked up from it Just drop start(), make caches work and add a test for them. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
roman-khimov
force-pushed
the
add-postblock-handling
branch
from
d5baa08
to
2fca051
Compare
roman-khimov
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2024
AliceInHunterland
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2024
AnnaShaleva
commented
Aug 6, 2024
Closed
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.
WIP, just something I have on hands right now, need to test it and integrate with NeoGo/NeoX nodes.
TODO:
Ref. #112.