Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
IF: Persist hotstuff safety state #1578
IF: Persist hotstuff safety state #1578
Changes from 8 commits
372b8bf
01764cd
d56303a
b9e7e18
ede43a1
12a0ea7
5572262
dd33d93
6f61f6b
a990bc9
17d587b
e771f49
4b34cf5
e0da055
c171034
14a898e
749cf41
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
std::make_pair( std::cref(block_id), phase_counter )
avoids copy.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.
Actually you don't need the make_pair constructor!
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.
removing the
std::pair
constructor: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.
I'm confused? How do you do this without
make_pair
or some kind of tuple struct type?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.
I agree that the
std::pair
constructor ofview_number
is not needed, but what does that have to do with thisget_digest_to_sign
implementation?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.
This comment chain is on
get_digest_to_sign
. I think we are in agreement.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.
Oh yes, my bad, sorry. For the
get_digest_to_sign
, can we only hash apair
and not atuple
? would be nicer to hash all 3 at once.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.
Yes, no reason to hash them separately. Good call.
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.
I would do this:
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.
The digest simplification is great but I think it's going to change all of the hotstuff unit tests since those use hardcoded hash values. If that's the case then I think we should do that in a separate issue/PR, referencing the comment with the fix: #1578 (comment)
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.
I think this and other members should be
std::optional
, but we can update that later.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.
Need to update all
safety_state
tosafety_states
to get compiled.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.
I'm going to revert the
std::optional
patch. Either we commit this as file persistence ticket of a previous safety state logic, or we roll in reviewing and fixing the safety state logic with the file persistence in this same PR.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.
I think you can commit this as previous safety state logic after CI is passed. Then in a new PR fix the remaining issues. This way we can move forward quickly.
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.
Yes, I agree, you can merge this. I think it is clear it is not the final version but this moves us forward.