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

fix: reuse timestamp for blocks failing CCC #1031

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 10, 2024

Conversation

omerfirmak
Copy link

@omerfirmak omerfirmak commented Sep 9, 2024

1. Purpose or design rationale of this PR

we assume that same height wont trigger multiple reorgs to be able to put an upper bound 
on the reorg depth. We rely on the fact that AsyncChecker executes transactions
one-by-one and tells worker the safe set of transactions to include in the replacement block
that wont trigger another error on the same block. If worker changes the timestamp and that
causes significant changes to the execution flow of included transactions; we might have a 
height where multiple reorgs happen.

this is extremely unlikely but possible.

2. PR title

Your PR title must follow conventional commits (as we are doing squash merge for each PR), so it must start with one of the following types:

  • build: Changes that affect the build system or external dependencies (example scopes: yarn, eslint, typescript)
  • ci: Changes to our CI configuration files and scripts (example scopes: vercel, github, cypress)
  • docs: Documentation-only changes
  • feat: A new feature
  • fix: A bug fix
  • perf: A code change that improves performance
  • refactor: A code change that doesn't fix a bug, or add a feature, or improves performance
  • style: Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc)
  • test: Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests

3. Deployment tag versioning

Has the version in params/version.go been updated?

  • This PR doesn't involve a new deployment, git tag, docker image tag, and it doesn't affect traces
  • Yes

4. Breaking change label

Does this PR have the breaking-change label?

  • This PR is not a breaking change
  • Yes

we assume that same height wont trigger multiple reorgs to be able
to put an upper bound on the reorg depth. We rely on the fact that
AsyncChecker executes transactions one-by-one and tells worker the
safe set of transactions to include in the replacement block that
wont trigger another error on the same block. If worker changes the
timestamp and that causes significant changes to the execution flow
of included transactions; we might have a height where multiple
reorgs happen.
@omerfirmak omerfirmak merged commit 6cdcff6 into develop Sep 10, 2024
8 checks passed
@omerfirmak omerfirmak deleted the omerfirmak/reuse-timestamp branch September 10, 2024 11:59
0xmountaintop pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2024
we assume that same height wont trigger multiple reorgs to be able
to put an upper bound on the reorg depth. We rely on the fact that
AsyncChecker executes transactions one-by-one and tells worker the
safe set of transactions to include in the replacement block that
wont trigger another error on the same block. If worker changes the
timestamp and that causes significant changes to the execution flow
of included transactions; we might have a height where multiple
reorgs happen.
@0xmountaintop 0xmountaintop mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2024
5 tasks
0xmountaintop added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2024
* refactor: eliminate double re-execution in AsyncChecker (#1036)

* fix: make reorg mode explicit (#1049)

* fix: avoid committing empty blocks after the deadline (#1051)

* fix: initialize pending block with an empty block (#1052)

* fix: reuse timestamp for blocks failing CCC (#1031)

we assume that same height wont trigger multiple reorgs to be able
to put an upper bound on the reorg depth. We rely on the fact that
AsyncChecker executes transactions one-by-one and tells worker the
safe set of transactions to include in the replacement block that
wont trigger another error on the same block. If worker changes the
timestamp and that causes significant changes to the execution flow
of included transactions; we might have a height where multiple
reorgs happen.

---------

Co-authored-by: Ömer Faruk Irmak <omerfirmak@gmail.com>
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.

3 participants