-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 88
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Cleanup incremental decommit - Part 2 #1513
Merged
ch1bo
merged 25 commits into
feature/incremental-decommit
from
cleanup-incremental-decommit-2
Jul 17, 2024
Merged
Cleanup incremental decommit - Part 2 #1513
ch1bo
merged 25 commits into
feature/incremental-decommit
from
cleanup-incremental-decommit-2
Jul 17, 2024
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
The explanation of why checking against the confirmed ledger on client submission does not hold up. We can (and should) check against the local ledger state in both cases as it's our local node's view of what is valid and what it would snapshot next anyways.
This matches with the Σ̂[j] ← σj assignment from the pseudo-code. This does not change the semantics, as the SnapshotConfirmed state changed event includes the full multi-signature anyways.
ch1bo
force-pushed
the
cleanup-incremental-decommit-2
branch
4 times, most recently
from
July 16, 2024 19:41
f96d46e
to
023e08e
Compare
…apshot This provides a more uniform interface across the chain layer.
ch1bo
force-pushed
the
cleanup-incremental-decommit-2
branch
from
July 17, 2024 06:58
023e08e
to
51852cf
Compare
ch1bo
commented
Jul 17, 2024
This, at least, results in log lines if this situation occurrs.
This includes a re-ordering of clauses in checkDecrement, which did not change semantics (but script hashes).
v0d1ch
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I noticed at least the decrement figure is not updated but we will revisit the spec anyway so I can correct it in the future pr. 🎉
By having versions in the ModelSnapshot, we can correctly test the head validator with contest transactions that try to set wrong versions (see removed TODO).
ch1bo
force-pushed
the
cleanup-incremental-decommit-2
branch
from
July 17, 2024 16:27
ca2cf2c
to
df2fcf2
Compare
ffakenz
reviewed
Jul 17, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👏
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.
Second part of promised cleanup on #1344. This holds not as crucial changes as the other and more refactorings than fixes.
This should resolve most of the comments I had about Incremental decommit #1344 and this also does the "clearing" of$\textcolor{red}{\red}$ areas in the specfication.
Validate a client decommit request against the
localUTxO
.We can (and should) check against the local ledger state in both cases as it's our local
node's view of what is valid and what it would snapshot next anyways.
Make AckSn processing emit a PartySignedSnapshot
This matches with the Σ̂[j] ← σj assignment from the pseudo-code.
This does not change the semantics, as the SnapshotConfirmed state
changed event includes the full multi-signature anyways.
Only request snapshot on ReqDec if no snapshot in flight
Added a missing$\setminus outputs(tx_\omega)$ to the spec.
Resolved "Spec Gap" comments in
HeadLogic
Refactored
CloseTx
,ContestTx
andDecrementTx
to takeConfirmedSnapshot
s and remove redundantcloseUTxOToDecommit
fromCloseTx
.Simplify/shorten/reword incremental decommit how-to
Removed various unused things
Enhance / properly use
TxTraceSpec
to detect problems in contest transaction creation by modeling versions inModelSnapshot
.