-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
Accept PVF code hashes in validation host #3655
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My main concern is the candidate-validation changes. I think the code can be improved there by leveraging the fact that the candidate descriptor carries the code hash which we can query.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
candidate-validation looks way better now! However, there is another point which made me sad: "Code not found" thingy.
b099976
to
094d164
Compare
On ice until #3728 is landed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
drive-by comment
65dfd4a
to
fb7e4e7
Compare
roadmap/implementers-guide/src/node/utility/candidate-validation.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
afe374f
to
bccbbc3
Compare
Putting these changes in their own commit, to make it clear that there were extra changes on top of the merge.
@pepyakin note that given async backing changes (in particular #5557) IMO this PR should be closed as it introduces rather unnecessary changes for now. The caching can be implemented later but would require some additional work. |
I guess I should have asked around more before tackling this! If this PR is closed then should this issue be closed as well? I believe it depends on this PR. |
No worries, there was no decision on closing it (yet), that's just my comment to give more context on whether this issue is still relevant. I started a discussion on how to proceed with it. |
Explicitly providing PVD? But this one is about passing PVF hashes instead of providing the preimages, right? But yeah in general I am not surprised of this outcome, candidate-validation was asking for rework anyway. |
Yes, for this reason a PR is still relevant but requires additional work. For example, ValidateFrom... message types could be unified into one and we would always attempt to look up pvf in the cache first. |
Resolves paritytech/polkadot-sdk#973