fix: expire all previous epochs

[j4m1ef0rd]

Pull Request

Closes: PRO-1613

Checklist

Please conduct a thorough self-review before opening the PR.

• I am confident that the code works.
• I have written sufficient tests.
• I have written and tested required migrations.
• I have updated documentation where appropriate.

Summary

• Changed the expire_epoch function to recursively expire all previous epochs that had not expired yet in chronological order. This should avoid the bug stated in the issue.
  • Added a test to make sure it expires as expected.
• Renamed BlocksPerEpoch -> EpochDuration
  • Added a migration and migration test for the rename.

Non-Breaking changes

I think this is non breaking, i'll let you tag it @dandanlen

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.42424% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 70%. Comparing base (bf785d5) to head (14ea562).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
state-chain/pallets/cf-validator/src/lib.rs	82%	4 Missing ⚠️
state-chain/runtime/src/lib.rs	0%	1 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
state-chain/custom-rpc/src/lib.rs	0%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #5279    +/-   ##
======================================
- Coverage     70%     70%    -0%     
======================================
  Files        486     487     +1     
  Lines      87138   87051    -87     
  Branches   87138   87051    -87     
======================================
- Hits       61169   61030   -139     
- Misses     22687   22740    +53     
+ Partials    3282    3281     -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[dandanlen]

@j4m1ef0rd I'll make the below changes.

Will wait for @acdibble and @marcellorigotti 's inputs re. api breakage before merging.

[dandanlen]

Unfortunately this is a breaking change 🙈
We could keep the old name around and flag it as deprecated... or maybe just keep the old name with a comment explaining that the name is for historical reasons...

@acdibble how much of a pain is it for you to change this?

[dandanlen]

Also a breaking change here, fyi @marcellorigotti

[marcellorigotti]

Does this mean that after the next binary release until we run the runtime-upgrade this rpc won't be available?
Or will it still work right away but with the new field name (blocks_per_epoch -> epoch_duration)?

[dandanlen]

Yeah it would mean that the binary release needs to be coordinated with the runtime upgrade. I think a better option would be to add a new field with the new name, and remove it in the following release (1.7 or 1.8).

[marcellorigotti]

I agree with the other option. If this RPC doesn't work then monitoring doesn't work as well (the majority of it at least)