Add stratum style mining protocol #444

kakao-jun-e · 2018-07-20T04:16:39Z

I have tested as below:

RUST_LOG="stratum=trace,miner=trace" cargo run -- -c blake_pow --author "0000000000000000000000000000000000000001"

#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  main TRACE miner  Set author to 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000001
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  main INFO codechain  Starting client
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  main INFO codechain  Handshake Listening on 127.0.0.1:3485
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  main INFO discovery  Node runs with unstructured discovery
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  main INFO codechain  RPC Listening on 8080
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  IO Worker #2 INFO sync  Sync extension initialized
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  main INFO codechain  IPC Listening on /tmp/jsonrpc.ipc
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  main INFO codechain  STRATUM Listening on 8008
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:57:59  main INFO test_script  Initialization complete
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE miner  prepare_work_sealing: entering
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE miner  prepare_work_sealing: have_work=false
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE miner  prepare_block: No existing work - making new block
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE miner  Adding parcel 0xadc81db96da9ff107fd9f23f53a58c8ae8a043ea128078ec56c2dd1437c5fbb0 took 880.88µs
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE miner  Pushed 1/1 parcels
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE miner  prepare_work: Checking whether we need to reseal: orig=None last=None, this=0xbaed3dec4a0e529d5e0a5d6be433ee1e568c4f899f64a993e4254ce7209ed0ec
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE miner  prepare_work: Pushing a new, refreshed or borrowed pending 0xbaed…d0ec...
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE miner  prepare_work: leaving (last=Some(0xbaed3dec4a0e529d5e0a5d6be433ee1e568c4f899f64a993e4254ce7209ed0ec))
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE stratum  Notify work
#517784000 2018-07-20 15:58:03  http.worker0 TRACE stratum  pushing work for 0 workers (payload: '{ "id": 17, "method": "mining.notify", "params": ["0xbaed3dec4a0e529d5e0a5d6be433ee1e568c4f899f64a993e4254ce7209ed0ec","0x7ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffe"] }')

remagpie · 2018-07-20T04:58:30Z

stratum/src/lib.rs

+    fn can_respond_to_submition() {
+        let addr = SocketAddr::from_str("127.0.0.1:19990").unwrap();
+        let _stratum =
+            Stratum::start(&addr, Arc::new(DummyManager::build().of_initial(r#"["dummy autorize payload"]"#)), None)


autorize -> authorize

remagpie · 2018-07-20T05:05:51Z

core/src/miner/stratum.rs

+impl Default for Config {
+    fn default() -> Self {
+        Config {
+            listen_addr: "0.0.0.0:0".parse().unwrap(),


Remove :0 here. We already have port number in Config.

remagpie · 2018-07-20T05:15:29Z

core/src/miner/stratum.rs

+
+    /// Start STRATUM job dispatcher and register it in the miner
+    pub fn register(cfg: &Config, miner: Arc<Miner>, client: Arc<Client>) -> Result<(), Error> {
+        let stratum = Stratum::start(cfg, miner.clone(), client.clone())?;


You don't have to clone client here.

remagpie · 2018-07-20T05:27:13Z

core/src/miner/stratum.rs

+use std::sync::Arc;
+
+use cstratum::PushWorkHandler;
+use cstratum::{Error as StratumServiceError, JobDispatcher, Stratum as StratumService};


Merge these two lines.

remagpie · 2018-07-20T05:44:33Z

core/src/miner/stratum.rs

+    }
+
+    /// Start STRATUM job dispatcher and register it in the miner
+    pub fn register(cfg: &Config, miner: Arc<Miner>, client: Arc<Client>) -> Result<(), Error> {


Is there any reason for implementing this here?
This kind of registering logics are usually implemented in main.rs.

remagpie · 2018-07-20T05:46:04Z

core/src/miner/stratum.rs

+        self.job()
+    }
+
+    fn job(&self) -> Option<String> {


It seems this function always return None.
What is expected behavior of this function?

It is not needed at the moment, so it may be good to delete, but it is needed to operate a minor (reward, ...). 0c69701

Could you expand your comment a bit more?
I can't understand what it means that it's safe to delete, but miner wouldn't operate with that.

@Kais-DkM I think this commit is the basic of stratum protocol for codechain. so I aim to provide the same degree as getwork and submit JSON-RPC.

As you know that, stratum protocols for bitcoin and ethereum provide additional information in this part to a miner.

Could you discuss it with me at the developer meeting?

Oh, I was confused with miner module in codechain.
I guess it's okay for now, but it's worth a discussion. Let's talk about this later again.

remagpie · 2018-07-20T05:49:24Z

stratum/src/lib.rs

@@ -496,4 +486,44 @@ mod tests {
            response
        );
    }
+
+    #[test]
+    fn can_respond_to_submition() {


I doubt if we can call this test as "unit test".
Usually scenarios included in source code is for unit testing, but this one seems to test operations on real world environment(e.g. opening tcp stream).
I think it'd be better test this kind of operations on integration tests.

I have added a new one to existing test.
But I agree with you, so I will apply this to an integrated test.

I actually meant that we should remove this test from this file..... but it seems there already exists similar test cases here.
I think we should file an issue about this problem, and revisit this issue later.

Filed an issue at #457

@Kais-DkM Thank you, I checked #457 out

remagpie · 2018-07-23T02:45:56Z

Please merge your commits into one commit.

remagpie · 2018-07-24T05:59:06Z

@redongjun Why was this PR closed?

kakao-jun-e · 2018-07-24T06:02:03Z

@Kais-DkM Sorry, I think I made a mistake.

kakao-jun-e · 2018-07-24T06:43:37Z

@Kais-DkM I merged the latest changes from master.

sgkim126 requested review from kseo and remagpie July 20, 2018 05:22

sgkim126 added the miner label Jul 20, 2018

remagpie requested changes Jul 20, 2018

View reviewed changes

kakao-jun-e mentioned this pull request Jul 20, 2018

Add stratum style mining protocol #352

Closed

remagpie reviewed Jul 20, 2018

View reviewed changes

kakao-jun-e force-pushed the release/stratum branch 2 times, most recently from 8509cc3 to b49c7db Compare July 24, 2018 04:26

remagpie previously approved these changes Jul 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

kakao-jun-e closed this Jul 24, 2018

kakao-jun-e reopened this Jul 24, 2018

Add the basic for stratum style mining protocol

60c17cd

kakao-jun-e dismissed remagpie’s stale review via 60c17cd July 24, 2018 06:40

kakao-jun-e force-pushed the release/stratum branch from b49c7db to 60c17cd Compare July 24, 2018 06:40

Merge branch 'master' into release/stratum

750ff27

remagpie merged commit 68b9d83 into CodeChain-io:master Jul 24, 2018

kakao-jun-e deleted the release/stratum branch August 8, 2018 13:28

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add stratum style mining protocol #444

Add stratum style mining protocol #444

kakao-jun-e commented Jul 20, 2018 •

edited

Loading

remagpie Jul 20, 2018

remagpie Jul 20, 2018

remagpie Jul 20, 2018

remagpie Jul 20, 2018

remagpie Jul 20, 2018 •

edited

Loading

remagpie Jul 20, 2018

kakao-jun-e Jul 23, 2018

remagpie Jul 23, 2018

kakao-jun-e Jul 24, 2018

remagpie Jul 24, 2018

remagpie Jul 20, 2018

kakao-jun-e Jul 23, 2018

remagpie Jul 23, 2018

remagpie Jul 23, 2018

kakao-jun-e Jul 24, 2018

remagpie commented Jul 23, 2018

remagpie commented Jul 24, 2018

kakao-jun-e commented Jul 24, 2018

kakao-jun-e commented Jul 24, 2018

Add stratum style mining protocol #444

Add stratum style mining protocol #444

Conversation

kakao-jun-e commented Jul 20, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

remagpie Jul 20, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

remagpie commented Jul 23, 2018

remagpie commented Jul 24, 2018

kakao-jun-e commented Jul 24, 2018

kakao-jun-e commented Jul 24, 2018

kakao-jun-e commented Jul 20, 2018 •

edited

Loading

remagpie Jul 20, 2018 •

edited

Loading