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

server: refactor process*Payload functions #644

Merged

Conversation

MariusVanDerWijden
Copy link
Collaborator

@MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden commented Apr 11, 2024

This PR changes the way the process functions work. Since it is safe to call cancel() multiple times, and we only need one valid payload from the relays, I think its safe to stick the results in a channel and only query one of them

@avalonche avalonche requested a review from jtraglia April 24, 2024 21:46
jtraglia
jtraglia previously approved these changes Apr 26, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@jtraglia jtraglia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like the spirit of this PR. Removing the write lock is nice. Channels are useful. I think it would be good to add back the deleted cancellation check, see my comment for more details.

requestCtxCancel()
*result = *responsePayload
resultCh <- responsePayload
log.Info("received payload from relay")
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think there could be value in adding back a cancellation check here. There's also a check at the beginning of the function, but this one (closer to the end) is most likely to catch it, right? This would help prevent multiple, relatively verbose "received payload from relay" messages.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I added back a check that should get rid of multiple received payload from relay messages, but its kinda ugly. I kinda prefer the multiple log lines, ptal

Comment on lines 737 to 621
wg.Wait()
close(resultCh)
result := <-resultCh
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a strange pattern, but it should work as intended. We still need the wait group unfortunately. Normally, reading from a channel is a blocking operation, but if the channel is closed it's not blocking. It would be cool if we could figure out a way of handling this better, where we don't necessarily have to wait for each request to finish. As in, remove the wait group and proceed as soon as we receive the first request.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I removed the wg and changed the pattern so that we only need one request to finish / or the timeout to trigger

@MariusVanDerWijden
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Somethings wrong... am investigating

@MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden force-pushed the refactor-process-payload branch from d169095 to ebb5790 Compare July 13, 2024 13:48
@MariusVanDerWijden
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Seems like the issue was the same as in #650
Attestantio was broken

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.41935% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 43.69%. Comparing base (74a8ecb) to head (c8ab903).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Files Patch % Lines
server/service.go 77.41% 4 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #644      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    43.84%   43.69%   -0.16%     
===========================================
  Files           15       15              
  Lines         1608     1609       +1     
===========================================
- Hits           705      703       -2     
- Misses         847      849       +2     
- Partials        56       57       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 43.69% <77.41%> (-0.16%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@MariusVanDerWijden MariusVanDerWijden force-pushed the refactor-process-payload branch from 16c8e04 to 4f970ca Compare July 24, 2024 11:59
metachris
metachris previously approved these changes Jul 31, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@metachris metachris left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a nice refactor and simplification, thanks 👍

@metachris metachris merged commit f566375 into flashbots:develop Aug 5, 2024
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.

4 participants