This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
Less picky epoch changes lookup, with gap fallback#13106
Closed
Less picky epoch changes lookup, with gap fallback#13106
Conversation
davxy
changed the title
davxy
added
B0-silent
melekes
approved these changes
Jan 10, 2023
Contributor
melekes
left a comment
melekes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 (code-wise; don't know enough to reason about business logic)
| // Tree nodes may be required while importing gap blocks. | ||
| return Ok(()) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is interesting. In what circumstances we could have both gap and forktree?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is a really bad hack and that is the motivation that I set as draft again.
I would like to open a discussion about it. I'll ping you when I have more info
michalkucharczyk
approved these changes
Jan 10, 2023
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 subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fix for the issue described by #12751 (comment)
In the (unlucky) event of skipped epochs, full nodes using BABE were receiving an error during the VRF output verification.
The problem was triggered because after warp sync the epoch changes data was contained within the gap structure AND (in contrast to the epoch changes tree) the gap is picky about the check. I.e. it requires that
epoch.start_slot <= slot < epoch.end_slot.Additionally we prevent epoch changes tree prune on finalization if there is something in the
gap. This is because we may require (again, after warp sync and if some epoch hash been skipped) the first tree entry during import of last gap entries.@andresilva this requires some brainstorming
I'm going to add some tests before merge