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

behaviour of nextProving period in simplePDP #65

Closed
irenegia opened this issue Oct 22, 2024 · 1 comment
Closed

behaviour of nextProving period in simplePDP #65

irenegia opened this issue Oct 22, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@irenegia
Copy link

if (!provenThisPeriod[proofSetId]) {
            uint256 periodsSkipped = 1;
            if (provingDeadlines[proofSetId] < block.number) {
                periodsSkipped = 1 + ((block.number - provingDeadlines[proofSetId]) / getMaxProvingPeriod());
            }
            emit FaultRecord(FaultType.SKIPPED, periodsSkipped);

@ZenGround0, I believe that when nextProvingPeriod is called before a proof is received, the DPD service should revert the removals done by the PDPverifier function and do nothing else. All the faults accounting should be done in the pdp service possesionProven function

cc @lucaniz

https://github.com/FILCAT/pdp/blob/14fd1c9225471aab4a517abdaf4791c8d9963fd4/contracts/src/SimplePDPService.sol#L169

@anorth
Copy link
Collaborator

anorth commented Oct 24, 2024

I chatted with @irenegia and team about this. They're attempting to avoid a caller being marked faulty potentially unnecessarily (they made a mistake?), before the deadline has elapsed. One possible change would be to disallow this method before the deadline has passed.

This would add a little complexity and reduce freedom. At the moment I don't think it's quite worth it, but it's something to consider.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants