Run on_tick before picking the head for proposal - #2897
Merged
Conversation
potuz
approved these changes
May 19, 2022
michaelsproul
approved these changes
May 19, 2022
michaelsproul
left a comment
michaelsproul
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, that was the intention of the original PR but it's good to make it explicit.
djrtwo
approved these changes
May 19, 2022
18 tasks
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
4 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
A follow up to #2878
It seems like running
on_tickis intended by the original PR, otherwise, attestations of a previous slot couldn't be applied.Currently,
on_tickresets proposer boost in addition to advancing the current slot and may have some other logic in the future. Implicit reset of proposer boost became a source of confusion here #2895 (comment). Thus, I think it's important to haveon_tickexplicitly mentioned in the validator's spec.cc @potuz @michaelsproul