Skip to content
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

chore: add solomachine client storage #1144

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 28, 2022

Conversation

damiannolan
Copy link
Member

Description

  • Adds storage operations to UpdateState and UpdateStateOnMisbehaviour

closes: #XXXX


Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

  • Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
  • Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
  • Code follows the module structure standards.
  • Wrote unit and integration tests
  • Updated relevant documentation (docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/)
  • Added relevant godoc comments.
  • Added a relevant changelog entry to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
  • Review Codecov Report in the comment section below once CI passes

Comment on lines 137 to 138
// TODO: Should be telemetry and events be emitted from 02-client?
// The clientID would need to be passed an additional arg here
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to make a decision on whether telemetry and events should remain to be emitted from 02-client or from within the ClientState implementation. We may need to pass the client ID as an additional arg if we want to do this in the lightclient implementation, or otherwise we may need to return the consensus height. Any thoughts on this? cc. @colin-axner @seantking

Copy link
Contributor

@colin-axner colin-axner Mar 21, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should not require light client implementations to emit events. This decision informed the proposed design. We should allow light client to optionally emit their own events and telemetry. This is technically possible by constructing a ClientMessage which contains the clientID, but I'm not opposed to adding the clientID as an argument to the function since 02-client already has that information. It doesn't provide any usefulness outside of event emission/telemetry since the client store is prefixed by the clientID

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To expand further on why we should not require light client implementations to emit events:

Relayers make use of the events we have in 02-client. By passing this to light client implementations, we lose standardization and risk light client implementators making mistakes. Since the functionality called by 02-client is very verbose now, 02-client can emit appropriate events when doing updates or updates on misbehaviour

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, great, that makes a lot of sense! Thanks, I'll remove the events and telemetry from here.

modules/light-clients/06-solomachine/types/update.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
modules/light-clients/06-solomachine/types/update.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
modules/light-clients/06-solomachine/types/update.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 129 to 134
// set default consensus height with header height
consensusHeight := smHeader.GetHeight()
if cs.ClientType() != exported.Localhost {
clientStore.Set(host.ConsensusStateKey(consensusHeight), types.MustMarshalConsensusState(cdc, consensusState))
} else {
consensusHeight = types.GetSelfHeight(ctx)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

where is this coming from? Solo machines don't store consensus states

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Slightly confused here, isn't this code run for solomachines too?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is, but it shouldn't be. This was another justification for why setting the consensus state within the light client implementation is useful. I thought I documented this clearly, but this was all I could find:

This would require light client developers to set the consensus states themselves (allowing header.GetHeight to be removed and stopping unnecessary state storage for solo machines).

ref

Solo machines shouldn't be setting a consensus state ever. It has a single consensus state which is constantly updated and thus it is stored within the client state. The code linked above was an inefficiency, performing unnecessary storage

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ahh, okay! Tbh I was confused why ConsensusState existed as a field on the solomachine ClientState and the extra storage was happening.
This should all be much easier to reason about when the refactor is done. Thank you for clarifying this and providing context, much appreciated!

Updated and removed this code :)

modules/light-clients/06-solomachine/types/update.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 137 to 138
// TODO: Should be telemetry and events be emitted from 02-client?
// The clientID would need to be passed an additional arg here
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To expand further on why we should not require light client implementations to emit events:

Relayers make use of the events we have in 02-client. By passing this to light client implementations, we lose standardization and risk light client implementators making mistakes. Since the functionality called by 02-client is very verbose now, 02-client can emit appropriate events when doing updates or updates on misbehaviour

@damiannolan damiannolan marked this pull request as ready for review March 22, 2022 08:47
@damiannolan damiannolan changed the title WIP: solomachine client storage chore: add solomachine client storage Mar 22, 2022
@damiannolan damiannolan requested a review from seantking March 22, 2022 08:48
@@ -615,7 +623,7 @@ func (suite *SoloMachineTestSuite) TestUpdateState() {
suite.Require().Equal(consensusState, cs.(*types.ClientState).ConsensusState)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you add checks on the successful case that the correct client state is set in the store?

func (cs ClientState) UpdateStateOnMisbehaviour(
_ sdk.Context, _ codec.BinaryCodec, _ sdk.KVStore, // prematurely include args for self storage of consensus state
) (*ClientState, exported.ConsensusState, error) {
func (cs ClientState) UpdateStateOnMisbehaviour(ctx sdk.Context, cdc codec.BinaryCodec, clientStore sdk.KVStore) (*ClientState, exported.ConsensusState, error) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a test for this function? Can you check that the correct client state is set in the store?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, there is a test function for this. I was initially just doing an assertion on the returned value but I can adapt it to query the store. Will do the same as you suggest for UpdateState 👍

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sweet, I just figure better to do now so when we remove the return values we don't have to add testing code

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Definitely! Agreed 💯

Copy link
Contributor

@colin-axner colin-axner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great work!

@damiannolan damiannolan enabled auto-merge (squash) March 28, 2022 14:28
@damiannolan damiannolan merged commit b0dd49d into 02-client-refactor Mar 28, 2022
@damiannolan damiannolan deleted the damian/solomachine-client-storage branch March 28, 2022 14:36
seunlanlege pushed a commit to ComposableFi/ibc-go that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2022
* WIP: solomachine UpdateState now handles storage of ClientState and ConsensusState

* applying suggestions for review

* removing unnecessary consensus state storage

* updating tests to use store in favour of return values
CosmosCar pushed a commit to caelus-labs/ibc-go that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2023
## Overview

This PR uses pkg `httptest` to avoid port conflict when running tests
under `da/test` i.e. `TestLifecycle`, `TestRetrieve`.

This allows the tests to pass even if an address is bound to the default
port i.e. `127.0.0.1:26658`

## Checklist

<!-- 
Please complete the checklist to ensure that the PR is ready to be
reviewed.

IMPORTANT:
PRs should be left in Draft until the below checklist is completed.
-->

- [ ] New and updated code has appropriate documentation
- [ ] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing
- [ ] Required CI checks are passing
- [ ] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or
documentation updates
- [ ] Linked issues closed with keywords
CosmosCar pushed a commit to caelus-labs/ibc-go that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2023
## Overview

This PR improves upon cosmos#1144 by simplifying `mock.Server` to use
`httptest` directly, avoiding a duplicate `http.Server`. `Server.Start`
doesn't need a listener anymore, and it returns the URL at which the
`httptest.Server` is running.

## Checklist

<!-- 
Please complete the checklist to ensure that the PR is ready to be
reviewed.

IMPORTANT:
PRs should be left in Draft until the below checklist is completed.
-->

- [ ] New and updated code has appropriate documentation
- [ ] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing
- [ ] Required CI checks are passing
- [ ] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or
documentation updates
- [ ] Linked issues closed with keywords
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants