Skip to content

fix(trie): Properly upsert into StoragesTrie in repair-trie #18941

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
mediocregopher merged 1 commit into from
Oct 13, 2025
Merged

fix(trie): Properly upsert into StoragesTrie in repair-trie #18941

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 10 additions & 1 deletion crates/cli/commands/src/db/repair_trie.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -179,8 +179,17 @@ fn verify_and_repair<N: ProviderNodeTypes>(
Output::StorageWrong { account, path, expected: node, .. } |
Output::StorageMissing(account, path, node) => {
// Wrong/missing storage node value, upsert it
// (We can't just use `upsert` method with a dup cursor, it's not properly
// supported)
let nibbles = StoredNibblesSubKey(path);
let entry = StorageTrieEntry { nibbles, node };
let entry = StorageTrieEntry { nibbles: nibbles.clone(), node };
if storage_trie_cursor
.seek_by_key_subkey(account, nibbles.clone())?
.filter(|v| v.nibbles == nibbles)
.is_some()
{
Comment on lines +186 to +190
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@yongkangc yongkangc Oct 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i see, so if an entry exists, we delete the current entry first before doing the upsert, so theres no duplicate state?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@mediocregopher mediocregopher Oct 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Correct. We don't have to do this on "normal" tables, but on DUPSORT tables the upsert method doesn't work as expected, so we have to do it manually.

storage_trie_cursor.delete_current()?;
}
storage_trie_cursor.upsert(account, &entry)?;
}
Output::Progress(path) => {
Expand Down
2 changes: 0 additions & 2 deletions crates/storage/provider/src/providers/database/provider.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1981,7 +1981,6 @@ impl<TX: DbTxMut + DbTx + 'static, N: NodeTypesForProvider> StateWriter
for (storage_key, (old_storage_value, _new_storage_value)) in storage {
let storage_entry = StorageEntry { key: *storage_key, value: *old_storage_value };
// delete previous value
// TODO: This does not use dupsort features
if plain_storage_cursor
.seek_by_key_subkey(*address, *storage_key)?
.filter(|s| s.key == *storage_key)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2080,7 +2079,6 @@ impl<TX: DbTxMut + DbTx + 'static, N: NodeTypesForProvider> StateWriter
for (storage_key, (old_storage_value, _new_storage_value)) in storage {
let storage_entry = StorageEntry { key: *storage_key, value: *old_storage_value };
// delete previous value
// TODO: This does not use dupsort features
if plain_storage_cursor
.seek_by_key_subkey(*address, *storage_key)?
.filter(|s| s.key == *storage_key)
Expand Down