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

[pull] master from paritytech:master #70

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 20, 2025
Merged

Conversation

pull[bot]
Copy link

@pull pull bot commented Jan 20, 2025

See Commits and Changes for more details.


Created by pull[bot] (v2.0.0-alpha.1)

Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )

…d block (#7205)

Follow-up to #6825, which introduced this bug.

We use the `can_build_upon` method to ask the runtime if it is fine to
build another block. The runtime checks this based on the
[`ConsensusHook`](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/c1b7c3025aa4423d4cf3e57309b60fb7602c2db6/cumulus/pallets/aura-ext/src/consensus_hook.rs#L110-L110)
implementation, the most popular one being the `FixedConsensusHook`.

In #6825 I removed a check that would always allow us to build when we
are building on an included block. Turns out this check is still
required when:
1. The [`UnincludedSegment`
](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/c1b7c3025aa4423d4cf3e57309b60fb7602c2db6/cumulus/pallets/parachain-system/src/lib.rs#L758-L758)
storage item in pallet-parachain-system is equal or larger than the
unincluded segment.
2. We are calling the `can_build_upon` runtime API where the included
block has progressed offchain to the current parent block (so last entry
in the `UnincludedSegment` storage item).

In this scenario the last entry in `UnincludedSegment` does not have a
hash assigned yet (because it was not available in `on_finalize` of the
previous block). So the unincluded segment will be reported at its
maximum length which will forbid building another block.

Ideally we would have a more elegant solution than to rely on the
node-side here. But for now the check is reintroduced and a test is
added to not break it again by accident.

---------

Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
Co-authored-by: Michal Kucharczyk <1728078+michalkucharczyk@users.noreply.github.com>
@pull pull bot added the ⤵️ pull label Jan 20, 2025
@pull pull bot merged commit 06f5d48 into dhiway:master Jan 20, 2025
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.

1 participant