feat: add dependent root to proposer preferences - #9303
Merged
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request integrates the dependentRoot field into ProposerPreferences, updating the SSZ container, error types, and gossip validation logic. The SeenProposerPreferences cache is refactored to include dependentRoot in its indexing. Review feedback identifies a logic error in the epoch calculation and proposer selection during validation and notes that the manual state caching in importBlock.ts is redundant.
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 472259da8a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Contributor
Performance Report✔️ no performance regression detected Full benchmark results
|
twoeths
reviewed
Apr 29, 2026
| // [IGNORE] The block with root `dependent_root` has been seen by the node. | ||
| // Sync lookup only to not trigger disk reload from gossip input. | ||
| const cpEpoch = proposalEpoch - 1; | ||
| const checkpointState = chain.regen.getCheckpointStateSync({epoch: cpEpoch, rootHex: dependentRootHex}); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there is a tiny chance at the time of preparing for next epoch, head root is not the proposer root
and we don't have this checkpoint state in memory
maybe get head state first, make sure it has the view of this dependent root
then fallback to getting cp state this way
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
right, I updated that, noticed we can use head state likely most of the time anyways, so it should cover the edge case you described, we only use getCheckpointStateSync if head state is not viable, the remaining question is if we should load from disk or not, but I think it's safer to not do that, also proposer preferences are only valid for current + next epoch, so we should have it cached
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the proposer look ahead is 2 epochs while we store checkpoint states of the last 3 epochs in memory so should not need that
wemeetagain
previously approved these changes
Apr 30, 2026
nflaig
enabled auto-merge (squash)
April 30, 2026 08:08
wemeetagain
previously approved these changes
Apr 30, 2026
wemeetagain
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2026
twoeths
reviewed
Apr 30, 2026
| for (const slot of this.validatorIndexesBySlot.keys()) { | ||
| if (slot < currentSlot) { | ||
| this.validatorIndexesBySlot.delete(slot); | ||
| for (const [dependentRoot, slotMap] of this.validatorBySlotByDependentRoot.entries()) { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not storing by slot as key of the 1st map? that would help pruning easier
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## unstable #9303 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 52.59% 52.59%
=========================================
Files 848 848
Lines 61100 61100
Branches 4505 4505
=========================================
Hits 32135 32135
Misses 28901 28901
Partials 64 64 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
1 task
nflaig
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2026
**Motivation** As suggested by @twoeths in #9303, the current map nesting in `SeenProposerPreferences` (`Map<dependentRoot, Map<slot, validatorIndex>>`) makes pruning inefficient — it requires iterating through every dependent root and checking each slot individually. **Description** Swaps the map nesting to `Map<slot, Map<dependentRoot, validatorIndex>>` so that pruning can delete entire slot entries directly from the outer map. No changes to the public API; `isKnown`, `add`, and `prune` all retain their existing signatures and behavior. Closes #9309 **AI Assistance Disclosure** - [x] External Contributors: I have read the [contributor guidelines](https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/blob/unstable/CONTRIBUTING.md#ai-assistance-notice) and disclosed my usage of AI below. Used Claude to discuss the approach and review the implementation. --------- Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Member
|
🎉 This PR is included in v1.43.0 🎉 |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
see ethereum/consensus-specs#5190 and ethereum/consensus-specs#5196