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

Corrections on 0.5.2 #160

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Dec 20, 2024
Merged

Corrections on 0.5.2 #160

merged 10 commits into from
Dec 20, 2024

Conversation

\begin{align}
&\forall a \in \xtassurances, c \in \N_\mathsf{C} :\\
&\quad a_f[c] \Rightarrow \rho^\dagger[c] \ne \none \wedge \mathbf{H}_t \le \rho^\dagger[c]_t + \mathsf{U}
&\quad a_f[c] \Rightarrow \rho^\dagger[c] \ne \none
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps we can eliminate the second condition (timeout) from 11.30.
By this stage, it should already have been reset to the empty set as per 11.18 ($\mathbf{H}_t \ge \rho^\dagger[c]_t + \mathsf{U}$).

screenshot-2024-12-08-11-15-55

@@ -124,10 +124,10 @@ \subsubsection{The Assurances Extrinsic}
&\mathsf{X}_A \equiv \token{\$jam\_available}
\end{align}

A bit may only be set if the corresponding core has a report pending availability on it which has not timed out:
A bit may only be set if the corresponding core has a report pending availability on it:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, according to this change, now a bit can be set even if the pending report has timed out. Thus , if we achieve an availability supermajority for a timed-out report (according to 11.17) it would still be included in W.

screenshot-2024-12-08-11-26-15

This means it will still be considered for accumulation in the next pipeline stage.

Essentially, we're now a bit more lenient with timeouts. In other words, if it's timed out but still available, we no longer consider it an issue.

Given this explicit change, I assume this is an intentional design choice. However, I just wanted to double-check to be sure

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes - if a report is made available on the exact timeout block, we prefer to accumulate than to drop.

@davxy davxy mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2024
9 tasks
@gavofyork gavofyork merged commit 662c2c1 into main Dec 20, 2024
@gavofyork gavofyork deleted the gav-on-0.5.2 branch December 20, 2024 09:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants