Publish last accepted height through chits #3441
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
yacovm
force-pushed
the
accepted_height
branch
from
d43011a to
9dcbac5
Compare
yacovm
changed the title
yacovm
force-pushed
the
accepted_height
branch
2 times, most recently
from
769e509 to
d1c2d4a
Compare
yacovm
force-pushed
the
accepted_height
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5b80f79 to
04d5dfe
Compare
aaronbuchwald
requested changes
Oct 2, 2024
yacovm
force-pushed
the
accepted_height
branch
from
04d5dfe to
f84c5a2
Compare
snow/engine/snowman/engine_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -444,7 +445,7 @@ func TestEngineMultipleQuery(t *testing.T) { | |||
| require.NoError(te.Put(context.Background(), vdr0, *getRequestID, blk1.Bytes())) | |||
|
|
|||
| // Should be dropped because the query was already filled | |||
| require.NoError(te.Chits(context.Background(), vdr2, *queryRequestID, blk0.ID(), blk0.ID(), blk0.ID())) | |||
| require.NoError(te.Chits(context.Background(), vdr2, *queryRequestID, blk0.ID(), blk0.ID(), blk0.ID(), 42)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we use blk0.Height() here since we expect the blkID and height to come from the same block? We should handle a malicious response, but I'd prefer that we use the expected response unless the test is meant to test a malicious response.
This commit adds the last accepted height to the Chits message.
The intention is that by receiving the latest accepted height of each node,
a node can know whether it is straggling behind the majority of the nodes in the chain.
I ran a build with the commit on a Fuji testnet node and verified the log matches the commit.
```
[10-02|19:59:48.312] VERBO <P Chain> snowman/engine.go:362 called Chits for the block {"nodeID": "NodeID-1AFBjE7UUM1AWWA1HtMGreRrvKwTh9Su", "requestID": 335, "preferredID": "zmoZ2RPy2mkx1ozSbhen9Ggh9boTewBCa6bgc5FnQu7d2umrf", "preferredIDAtHeight": "zmoZ2RPy2mkx1ozSbhen9Ggh9boTewBCa6bgc5FnQu7d2umrf", "acceptedID": "zmoZ2RPy2mkx1ozSbhen9Ggh9boTewBCa6bgc5FnQu7d2umrf", "acceptedHeight": 0}
```
Also verified on its grafana dashboard that it participates in consensus and that there are no failing health checks.
Signed-off-by: Yacov Manevich <[email protected]>
yacovm
force-pushed
the
accepted_height
branch
from
f84c5a2 to
f499876
Compare
aaronbuchwald
previously requested changes
Oct 3, 2024
snow/engine/snowman/engine_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -2926,6 +2938,7 @@ func TestEngineRegistersInvalidVoterDependencyRegression(t *testing.T) { | |||
| acceptedChain[1].ID(), | |||
| acceptedChain[1].ID(), | |||
| snowmantest.GenesisID, | |||
| acceptedChain[1].Height(), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be 0 to match snowmantest.GenesisID ?
snow/engine/snowman/engine_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -2907,6 +2918,7 @@ func TestEngineRegistersInvalidVoterDependencyRegression(t *testing.T) { | |||
| rejectedChain[1].ID(), | |||
| rejectedChain[1].ID(), | |||
| snowmantest.GenesisID, | |||
| rejectedChain[1].Height(), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be 0 to match snowmantest.GenesisID ?
snow/engine/snowman/engine_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -2882,6 +2892,7 @@ func TestEngineRegistersInvalidVoterDependencyRegression(t *testing.T) { | |||
| acceptedChain[0].ID(), | |||
| acceptedChain[0].ID(), | |||
| snowmantest.GenesisID, | |||
| acceptedChain[0].Height(), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be 0 to match snowmantest.GenesisID ?
snow/engine/snowman/engine_test.go
Outdated
Comment on lines
554
to
555
| vm.ParseBlockF = func(_ context.Context, _ []byte) (snowman.Block, error) { | ||
| return &snowmantest.Block{HeightV: 41}, nil |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we overriding ParseBlockF to return a mocked block w/ height 41 instead of the genesis' child block as in the previous version of this test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I modified the test because I thought it would be less trivial than it is now. I reverted it.
snow/engine/snowman/engine_test.go
Outdated
Comment on lines
3264
to
3266
| blk1 := snowmantest.BuildChild(snowmantest.Genesis) | ||
|
|
||
| blk2 := snowmantest.BuildChild(blk1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we use snowmantest.BuildDescendants instead of calling BuildChild twice?
Signed-off-by: Yacov Manevich <[email protected]>
StephenButtolph
approved these changes
Oct 3, 2024
darioush
approved these changes
Oct 3, 2024
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (*accepted) OnValidatorWeightChanged(_ ids.NodeID, _, _ uint64) {} | ||
|
|
||
| func (a *accepted) SetLastAccepted(nodeID ids.NodeID, frontier ids.ID) { | ||
| func (a *accepted) SetLastAccepted(nodeID ids.NodeID, frontier ids.ID, height uint64) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: should we rename frontier to blockID or just id?
Signed-off-by: Yacov Manevich <[email protected]>
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Why this should be merged
In order for a node to know whether it's straggling behind the majority of the chain validator nodes,
the simplest and most effective way is for nodes to publish their latest accepted height as part of the p2p protocol.
How this works
This commit adds the last accepted height to the Chits message. Then, the
acceptedFrontiersindexes this information alongside the latest acceptedID.How this was tested
I ran a build with the commit on a Fuji testnet node and verified the log matches the commit.
Also verified on its grafana dashboard that it participates in consensus and that there are no failing health checks.