avoid creating duplicate unbacked spans when we see extra statements#2145
avoid creating duplicate unbacked spans when we see extra statements#2145
Conversation
rphmeier
added
A0-please_review
|
honestly, this is related to a larger bug in candidate backing (hooray) where we validate the candidate a second time as well. in cases where we've seen the candidate backed and then are asked to second it by another subsystem. |
|
will merge this so we can redeploy; touches no actual logic, just logging |
|
I suppose a signature that seconds already references who proposed? |
|
@burdges the receipt contains the collator address and signature |
* add candidate hash statement circulation span * add relay-parent to hash-span * Some typos and misspellings in docs I found, during my studies. (#2144) * Fix stale link to overseer docs * Some typos and mispellings in docs/comments I found during studying how Polkadot works. * Rococo V1 (#2141) * Update to latest master and use 30 minutes sessions * add bootnodes to chainspec * Update Substrate * Update chain-spec * Update Cargo.lock * GENESIS * Change session length to one hour * Bump spec_version to not fuck anything up ;) Co-authored-by: Erin Grasmick <erin@parity.io> * avoid creating duplicate unbacked spans when we see extra statements (#2145) * improve jaeger spans for statement distribution * tweak and add failing test for repropagation * make a change that gets the test passing * guide: clarify * remove semicolon Co-authored-by: Robert Klotzner <eskimor@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Bastian Köcher <bkchr@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Erin Grasmick <erin@parity.io>
|
@rphmeier Just following up on
Does that larger bug have its own issue? If so, I can't seem to find it: the most recent issue created which contains the phrase "candidate backing" seems to have been from 10 days before this PR. |
|
@coriolinus I didn't file one, no, but please go ahead if you like. It's not a terrible bug since the sanity checks before statement issuance will protect us from issuing conflicting statements. Just wasted a little bit of CPU |
3 participants
Receiving a
CandidateBackingMessage::Secondor seeing aStatement::Secondedafter we'd already seen requisite votes for backing led us to create extra unbacked spans that were never cleaned up.