Skip to content

Conversation

@agnxsh
Copy link
Contributor

@agnxsh agnxsh commented Sep 18, 2025

No description provided.

@tersec
Copy link
Contributor

tersec commented Sep 18, 2025

[2025-09-18T12:32:17.681Z] /home/jenkins/workspace/tforms_linux_x86_64_main_PR-7507/beacon_chain/validators/message_router.nim(183, 47) Error: invalid indentation
[2025-09-18T12:32:17.681Z] make: *** [Makefile:451: mev_mock] Error 1
[2025-09-18T12:32:17.681Z] make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

@tersec tersec enabled auto-merge (squash) September 18, 2025 15:28
@tersec tersec merged commit e120bdd into unstable Sep 18, 2025
11 checks passed
@tersec tersec deleted the ff branch September 18, 2025 18:06
Comment on lines 252 to +261
for i in 0..<columns.len:
let r = verify_data_column_sidecar_kzg_proofs(columns[i][])
if r.isErr:
malformed_cols.incl(i)
if r.isErr():
debug "backfill data column validation failed",
blockRoot = shortLog(signedBlock.root),
column_sidecar = shortLog(columns[i][]),
blck = shortLog(signedBlock.message),
signature = shortLog(signedBlock.signature),
msg = r.error()

columnsOk = (dataColumnsOpt.get.lenu64 - malformed_cols.lenu64) >=
(self.consensusManager.dag.cfg.NUMBER_OF_COLUMNS div 2)
columnsOk = r.isOk()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wouldn't columnsOk be always the result of the last columns if without break?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that is fine actually, if it is the result of the last columns, we want the entirety of DataColumnSidecarto be columnsOk = true

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

generally, these "ok" style variables with nested if conditions are pretty hard to read - avoid if possible, ie pull the logic out into its own function and return an error directly instead - see #7518

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the ok style variables existed before because we didn't have overloaded functions for storeBlock and storeBackfillBlock, which is why there were different decisions of block addition based on the combination of blobsOk + columnsOk. i agree, later on, once simplified cleaning up makes sense.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

one of the best opportunities to do cleanup work like this is when you're reading the "previous" version of the code to understand what it's doing, as part of the due diligence to add the new version - this turns the passive reading into an active endeavor which helps cement the understanding of the existing code - ie just before adding the fulu fork - this way, the existing code gets cleaned up at a regular basis and the new fork you're adding starts out clean.

siddarthkay pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
…7507)

* attempt to solve columndb issue + fix cgc with non-validator issue

* some more changes

* oops

* Update beacon_chain/gossip_processing/block_processor.nim

---------

Co-authored-by: tersec <[email protected]>
siddarthkay pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
…7507)

* attempt to solve columndb issue + fix cgc with non-validator issue

* some more changes

* oops

* Update beacon_chain/gossip_processing/block_processor.nim

---------

Co-authored-by: tersec <[email protected]>
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants