Resharding V3 - state witness, implementation #577
Conversation
neps/nep-0568.md
Outdated
| ```text | ||
| [All NEPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. Author must explain a proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. Submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.] | ||
| ``` | ||
| Approach is fully backwards compatible, just adding new protocol upgrade on top of existing implementation. Also, we were able to completely remove previous resharding logic, as it was already approved by validators, and to process chunks from any layout, it is enough to take state from that layout from archival node. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We retained the capability to replay reshardingV2 in archive nodes, not sure if it's worth mentioning
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just deleted mention of this, as I don't have enough understanding.
neps/nep-0568.md
Outdated
| ### Positive | ||
|
|
||
| * p1 | ||
| * The protocol is able to execute resharding even while only a fraction of nodes track the split shard. | ||
| * New resharding can happen in the matter of minutes instead of hours. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we say the resharding happens "instantaneously" from the point of view of NEAR users?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Btw, is this section supposed to be filled by us or the NEP reviewers? I've seen it empty for a few NEPs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, it happened instantaneously before as well. It's just that we need less "background compute power" now. I clarified it.
For NEP reviewers we have "Benefits" and "Concerns" sections below. It seems very reasonable to provide our initial view at pros and cons before review.
neps/nep-0568.md
Outdated
| and then it calls Trie(state_transition_proof).retain_split_shard(boundary_account) which should succeed if proof is sufficient and generates new state root | ||
| finally, it checks that the new state root matches the state root proposed in ChunkStateWitness. if the whole ChunkStateWitness is valid, then chunk validator sends endorsement which also endorses the resharding. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We may want to take out these long text lines from the code block, or newline them manually
| @@ -163,6 +163,16 @@ supporting smooth transitions without altering storage structures directly. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Stateless Validation | |||
|
|
|||
| ### State Witness | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a quick preface with very high level description? It feels like you're jumping right into the nitty gritty details.
neps/nep-0568.md
Outdated
| @@ -187,18 +197,39 @@ In this NEP, we propose updating the ShardId semantics to allow for arbitrary id | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Reference Implementation | |||
|
|
|||
| ```text | |||
| [This technical section is required for Protocol proposals but optional for other categories. A draft implementation should demonstrate a minimal implementation that assists in understanding or implementing this proposal. Explain the design in sufficient detail that: | |||
| ``` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a short comment to each block? The pseudo code is nice but I think it would be good to also have something in human words ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And please also add a subsection heading if necessary?
Adding State Witness section and filling some empty sections.