Use new hashing service #2896
Merged
Use new hashing service #2896
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
…imityScoringService
…redistnace-function-id
…simulation' into test/hash-and-scoredistnace-function-id
…simulation' into feature/use-new-hashing-service
…se-new-hashing-service
Mihajlo-Pavlovic
requested review from
branarakic,
djordjekovac,
NZT48 and
zeroxbt
as code owners
…OriginTrail/ot-node into feature/use-new-hashing-service
0xbraindevd
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2024
|
|
||
| let neighbourhoodEdges = null; | ||
| if (serviceAgreement.scoreFunctionId === 2) { | ||
| neighbourhoodEdges = await this.shardingTableService.getNeighboorhoodEdgeNodes( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's keep American version neighborhood consistently everywhere
Suggested change
| neighbourhoodEdges = await this.shardingTableService.getNeighboorhoodEdgeNodes( | |
| neighborhoodEdges = await this.shardingTableService.getNeighborhoodEdgeNodes( |
| COMMIT_MANAGER_V1_U1_CONTRACT: 'CommitManagerV1U1Contract', | ||
| SERVICE_AGREEMENT_V1_CONTRACT: 'ServiceAgreementV1Contract', | ||
| PARAMETERS_STORAGE_CONTRACT: 'ParametersStorageContract', | ||
| IDENTITY_STORAGE_CONTRACT: 'IdentityStorageContract', | ||
| Log2PLDSF: 'Log2PLDSF', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This won't work as we don't listen to the events from this contract + it should be handled in a different way comparing to other contracts as we get parameters with one getter, but set them with different setters
| @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ class PullBlockchainShardingTableMigration extends BaseMigration { | |||
| ...nodes.slice(sliceIndex).filter((node) => node.nodeId !== '0x'), | |||
| ); | |||
| sliceIndex = 1; | |||
| // TODO: Should we fix it here also | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure what is meant by this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not valid anymore, this comment should be removed
| @@ -41,18 +41,20 @@ const ABIs = { | |||
| ProfileStorage: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/ProfileStorage.json'), | |||
| ScoringProxy: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/ScoringProxy.json'), | |||
| ServiceAgreementV1: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/ServiceAgreementV1.json'), | |||
| CommitManagerV1: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/CommitManagerV1.json'), | |||
| CommitManagerV1U1: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/CommitManagerV1U1.json'), | |||
| CommitManagerV1: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/CommitManagerV2.json'), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's use exports from the package
| ServiceAgreementStorageProxy: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/ServiceAgreementStorageProxy.json'), | ||
| UnfinalizedStateStorage: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/UnfinalizedStateStorage.json'), | ||
| LinearSum: require('dkg-evm-module/abi/LinearSum.json'), | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| const SCORING_FUNCTIONS = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can get it from the blockchain and cache it
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async getLinearSumParams() { |
| @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ class BlockchainEventListenerService { | |||
| currentBlock, | |||
| CONTRACT_EVENTS.PROFILE, | |||
| ), | |||
| // TODO: Update with new commit managers | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove the comment, not needed
| @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ class ProximityScoringService { | |||
| }; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| async LinearSum(blockchain, distance, stake, maxNeighborhoodDistance) { | |||
| async linearSum(blockchain, distance, stake, maxNeighborhoodDistance) { | |||
| this.log2PLDSFParams = await this.blockchainModuleManager.getLog2PLDSFParams( | ||
| let maxNeighborhoodDistance; | ||
| if (neighbourhoodEdges) { | ||
| maxNeighborhoodDistance = await this.proximityScoringService.callProximityFunction( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should introduce ideal max distance here
| ); | ||
| peersWithDistance.sort((a, b) => { |
NZT48
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2024
…he blockchain implementation
Fixed formula for LinearSum score calculation
NZT48
merged commit c141ffd
into
feature/final-proximity-scoring-simulation
3 checks passed
This was referenced Feb 14, 2024
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.
Description
Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration
Checklist: