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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix missing transaction in light mempool bug #1239

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 13, 2024
Merged

Fix missing transaction in light mempool bug #1239

merged 7 commits into from
Nov 13, 2024

Conversation

Shourya742
Copy link
Contributor

Closes: #840

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 25.13%. Comparing base (66b1807) to head (7cc0424).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1239      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   19.36%   25.13%   +5.76%     
==========================================
  Files         164       20     -144     
  Lines       10812     1134    -9678     
==========================================
- Hits         2094      285    -1809     
+ Misses       8718      849    -7869
Flag Coverage Δ
binary_codec_sv2-coverage ?
binary_serde_sv2-coverage ?
binary_sv2-coverage ?
bip32_derivation-coverage ?
buffer_sv2-coverage ?
codec_sv2-coverage ?
common_messages_sv2-coverage ?
const_sv2-coverage ?
error_handling-coverage ?
framing_sv2-coverage ?
jd_client-coverage ?
jd_server-coverage ?
job_declaration_sv2-coverage ?
key-utils-coverage ?
mining-coverage ?
mining_device-coverage ?
mining_proxy_sv2-coverage ?
noise_sv2-coverage ?
pool_sv2-coverage ?
protocols ?
roles ?
roles_logic_sv2-coverage ?
sv1-mining-device-coverage ?
sv2_ffi-coverage ?
template_distribution_sv2-coverage ?
translator_sv2-coverage ?
utils 25.13% <ø> (ø)
v1-coverage ?

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.

@Shourya742 Shourya742 changed the title [WIP] Fix missing transaction in light mempool bug Fix missing transaction in light mempool bug Nov 2, 2024
@Shourya742 Shourya742 marked this pull request as ready for review November 2, 2024 15:57
@GitGab19
Copy link
Collaborator

GitGab19 commented Nov 3, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@Shourya742 I had a quick look at this solution and I have two major points to discuss:

  • You remove all the txs contained in an old job from the mempool --> probably the majority of the txs contained in the new job will be the same --> it doesn't make too much sense to remove and add them again
  • To properly remove old txs, you transform the mempool from txid to short_id (which doesn't scale well as approach and it's already a bottleneck we encounter when we receive a DeclareMiningJob message.

Have you explored the idea about not removing the old txs, but simply updating the mempool (as it's already done) and adding the txs contained in the last declared jobs (if they are not already there in the mempool after the update)?
Does it make sense to you? If not, which could be the issues?

@Shourya742
Copy link
Contributor Author

Shourya742 commented Nov 4, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@Shourya742 I had a quick look at this solution and I have two major points to discuss:

  • You remove all the txs contained in an old job from the mempool --> probably the majority of the txs contained in the new job will be the same --> it doesn't make too much sense to remove and add them again
  • To properly remove old txs, you transform the mempool from txid to short_id (which doesn't scale well as approach and it's already a bottleneck we encounter when we receive a DeclareMiningJob message.

Have you explored the idea about not removing the old txs, but simply updating the mempool (as it's already done) and adding the txs contained in the last declared jobs (if they are not already there in the mempool after the update)? Does it make sense to you? If not, which could be the issues?

Point 1: We are checking if the txid is not present in the new job. Based on this, we decrement the counter value rather than deleting everything from the old job.

Point 2: I didn’t know that—let me check on it.

I initially thought keeping the JDS mempool as lean as possible was a requirement. However, it does make sense to let transactions persist in the mempool without a specific logic to remove them once a new DMJ is anticipated. In my testing, while we have logic to remove transactions from the old job, it didn’t result in a significant reduction in the number of transactions deleted from the mempool. But if we’re okay with not keeping the JDS mempool lean, then we can follow the approach you suggested.

@Shourya742 Shourya742 force-pushed the 2024-10-missing-transaction-mempool branch from f244cf7 to 5d0462d Compare November 12, 2024 06:32
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

🐰 Bencher Report

Branch2024-10-missing-transaction-mempool
Testbedsv2
🚨 1 ALERT: Threshold Boundary Limit exceeded!
BenchmarkMeasure
Units		ViewBenchmark Result
(Result Δ%)		Lower Boundary
(Limit %)		Upper Boundary
(Limit %)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize_deserializeL2 Accesses
accesses		📈 plot
🚨 alert
🚷 threshold		87.00
(+17.28%)		85.01
(102.34%)
Click to view all benchmark results
BenchmarkEstimated CyclesBenchmark Result
estimated cycles
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
estimated cycles
(Limit %)		InstructionsBenchmark Result
instructions
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
instructions
(Limit %)		L1 AccessesBenchmark Result
accesses
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
accesses
(Limit %)		L2 AccessesBenchmark Result
accesses
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
accesses
(Limit %)		RAM AccessesBenchmark Result
accesses
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
accesses
(Limit %)
client_sv2_handle_message_common📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		2,053.00
(-1.86%)		2,204.66
(93.12%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		473.00
(-0.09%)		490.77
(96.38%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		738.00
(+0.27%)		760.99
(96.98%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		4.00
(-27.07%)		14.28
(28.02%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		37.00
(-2.51%)		41.08
(90.07%)
client_sv2_handle_message_mining📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		8,212.00
(+0.06%)		8,292.10
(99.03%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		2,137.00
(-0.03%)		2,143.08
(99.72%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		3,157.00
(-0.12%)		3,170.59
(99.57%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		38.00
(+6.55%)		42.49
(89.44%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		139.00
(-0.06%)		140.99
(98.59%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		6,213.00
(-1.04%)		6,389.35
(97.24%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		1,750.00
(-0.06%)		1,769.01
(98.93%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		2,553.00
(-0.04%)		2,579.84
(98.96%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		18.00
(+6.13%)		24.79
(72.60%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		102.00
(-1.90%)		107.02
(95.31%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard_serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		14,554.00
(-1.21%)		14,982.55
(97.14%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		4,694.00
(-0.02%)		4,713.01
(99.60%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		6,759.00
(+0.00%)		6,785.37
(99.61%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		47.00
(+8.05%)		53.45
(87.94%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		216.00
(-2.53%)		228.21
(94.65%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard_serialize_deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		27,352.00
(-0.62%)		27,715.42
(98.69%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		10,585.00
(+0.07%)		10,634.07
(99.54%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		15,402.00
(+0.07%)		15,477.48
(99.51%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		87.00
(+7.14%)		89.46
(97.25%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		329.00
(-1.80%)		341.70
(96.28%)
client_sv2_open_channel📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		4,303.00
(-2.20%)		4,628.48
(92.97%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		1,461.00
(-0.03%)		1,478.77
(98.80%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		2,163.00
(+0.15%)		2,187.59
(98.88%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		8.00
(-11.27%)		17.84
(44.83%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		60.00
(-4.33%)		68.79
(87.22%)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		13,858.00
(-1.49%)		14,482.08
(95.69%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		5,064.00
(-0.01%)		5,081.77
(99.65%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		7,328.00
(+0.03%)		7,355.16
(99.63%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		39.00
(+11.13%)		43.30
(90.08%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		181.00
(-3.51%)		199.53
(90.71%)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize_deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		22,569.00
(-0.41%)		22,902.65
(98.54%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		8,027.00
(+0.10%)		8,074.42
(99.41%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		11,669.00
(+0.04%)		11,755.38
(99.27%)		📈 view plot
🚨 view alert
🚷 view threshold		87.00
(+17.28%)		85.01
(102.34%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		299.00
(-1.52%)		312.36
(95.72%)
client_sv2_setup_connection📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		4,643.00
(-0.89%)		4,778.18
(97.17%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		1,502.00
(-0.03%)		1,519.77
(98.83%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		2,278.00
(-0.04%)		2,302.95
(98.92%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		11.00
(+19.73%)		15.61
(70.49%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		66.00
(-2.11%)		70.00
(94.29%)
client_sv2_setup_connection_serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		16,024.00
(-0.94%)		16,485.43
(97.20%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		5,963.00
(-0.01%)		5,980.77
(99.70%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		8,664.00
(+0.01%)		8,694.64
(99.65%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		44.00
(+9.85%)		53.73
(81.90%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		204.00
(-2.36%)		217.01
(94.01%)
client_sv2_setup_connection_serialize_deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		35,376.00
(-0.49%)		35,742.20
(98.98%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		14,855.00
(+0.06%)		14,903.44
(99.67%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		21,821.00
(+0.05%)		21,912.93
(99.58%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		100.00
(+7.47%)		114.81
(87.10%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		373.00
(-1.65%)		385.02
(96.88%)
🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

🐰 Bencher Report

Branch2024-10-missing-transaction-mempool
Testbedsv1
Click to view all benchmark results
BenchmarkEstimated CyclesBenchmark Result
estimated cycles
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
estimated cycles
(Limit %)		InstructionsBenchmark Result
instructions
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
instructions
(Limit %)		L1 AccessesBenchmark Result
accesses
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
accesses
(Limit %)		L2 AccessesBenchmark Result
accesses
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
accesses
(Limit %)		RAM AccessesBenchmark Result
accesses
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
accesses
(Limit %)
get_authorize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		8,447.00
(-0.12%)		8,829.57
(95.67%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		3,689.00
(-1.59%)		3,890.44
(94.82%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		5,157.00
(-1.90%)		5,457.35
(94.50%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		7.00
(-1.10%)		12.25
(57.16%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		93.00
(+2.85%)		96.24
(96.63%)
get_submit📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		95,509.00
(+0.07%)		96,155.99
(99.33%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		59,346.00
(-0.21%)		59,814.82
(99.22%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		85,219.00
(-0.24%)		85,912.42
(99.19%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		42.00
(-7.72%)		65.89
(63.74%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		288.00
(+2.90%)		289.55
(99.47%)
get_subscribe📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		7,928.00
(-1.10%)		8,383.20
(94.57%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		2,765.00
(-2.46%)		2,970.09
(93.09%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		3,848.00
(-2.90%)		4,150.11
(92.72%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		11.00
(-8.45%)		20.85
(52.75%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		115.00
(+0.79%)		120.16
(95.71%)
serialize_authorize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		12,270.00
(-0.03%)		12,650.51
(96.99%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		5,266.00
(-1.01%)		5,460.66
(96.44%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		7,325.00
(-1.27%)		7,619.38
(96.14%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		9.00
(+0.44%)		15.31
(58.77%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		140.00
(+1.87%)		143.69
(97.43%)
serialize_deserialize_authorize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		24,400.00
(-1.14%)		25,286.60
(96.49%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		9,838.00
(-0.54%)		10,054.46
(97.85%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		13,890.00
(-0.54%)		14,208.08
(97.76%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		30.00
(-13.65%)		44.21
(67.86%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		296.00
(-1.73%)		315.99
(93.67%)
serialize_deserialize_handle_authorize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		30,144.00
(-0.56%)		30,798.34
(97.88%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		12,015.00
(-0.56%)		12,224.90
(98.28%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		16,999.00
(-0.65%)		17,316.21
(98.17%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		60.00
(+7.73%)		68.16
(88.03%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		367.00
(-0.63%)		382.16
(96.03%)
serialize_deserialize_handle_submit📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		126,463.00
(-0.01%)		127,200.55
(99.42%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		73,200.00
(-0.12%)		73,698.97
(99.32%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		104,913.00
(-0.15%)		105,667.64
(99.29%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		103.00
(-4.24%)		135.19
(76.19%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		601.00
(+0.82%)		605.46
(99.26%)
serialize_deserialize_handle_subscribe📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		27,532.00
(-1.04%)		28,654.58
(96.08%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		9,584.00
(-0.66%)		9,789.53
(97.90%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		13,542.00
(-0.77%)		13,848.78
(97.78%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		68.00
(+7.10%)		75.99
(89.48%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		390.00
(-1.50%)		417.44
(93.43%)
serialize_deserialize_submit📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		115,155.00
(-0.08%)		115,992.24
(99.28%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		68,060.00
(-0.07%)		68,513.49
(99.34%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		97,655.00
(-0.09%)		98,355.01
(99.29%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		63.00
(+0.04%)		79.05
(79.70%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		491.00
(+0.01%)		499.68
(98.26%)
serialize_deserialize_subscribe📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		22,906.00
(-1.44%)		24,082.48
(95.11%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		8,143.00
(-0.73%)		8,346.21
(97.57%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		11,466.00
(-0.77%)		11,756.53
(97.53%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		34.00
(-8.95%)		44.69
(76.09%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		322.00
(-1.99%)		349.39
(92.16%)
serialize_submit📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		99,910.00
(+0.05%)		100,525.28
(99.39%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		61,408.00
(-0.18%)		61,861.06
(99.27%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		88,075.00
(-0.22%)		88,761.37
(99.23%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		50.00
(+5.89%)		66.07
(75.68%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		331.00
(+1.99%)		334.03
(99.09%)
serialize_subscribe📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		11,373.00
(-0.21%)		11,761.53
(96.70%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		4,118.00
(-1.53%)		4,316.21
(95.41%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		5,708.00
(-1.92%)		6,006.21
(95.03%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		13.00
(+1.16%)		20.66
(62.92%)		📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		160.00
(+1.58%)		164.14
(97.48%)
🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

🐰 Bencher Report

Branch2024-10-missing-transaction-mempool
Testbedsv1
Click to view all benchmark results
BenchmarkLatencyBenchmark Result
nanoseconds (ns)
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
nanoseconds (ns)
(Limit %)
client-submit-serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		6,761.30
(-0.22%)		8,223.21
(82.22%)
client-submit-serialize-deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		7,630.80
(-0.62%)		9,283.45
(82.20%)
client-submit-serialize-deserialize-handle/client-submit-serialize-deserialize-handle📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		8,191.40
(-0.61%)		9,784.34
(83.72%)
client-sv1-authorize-serialize-deserialize-handle/client-sv1-authorize-serialize-deserialize-handle📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		884.09
(-0.29%)		1,037.03
(85.25%)
client-sv1-authorize-serialize-deserialize/client-sv1-authorize-serialize-deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		677.15
(-0.68%)		860.15
(78.72%)
client-sv1-authorize-serialize/client-sv1-authorize-serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		248.58
(+0.31%)		268.54
(92.57%)
client-sv1-get-authorize/client-sv1-get-authorize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		158.03
(+0.32%)		166.44
(94.95%)
client-sv1-get-submit📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		6,548.20
(-0.03%)		8,175.70
(80.09%)
client-sv1-get-subscribe/client-sv1-get-subscribe📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		277.86
(-0.45%)		322.25
(86.23%)
client-sv1-subscribe-serialize-deserialize-handle/client-sv1-subscribe-serialize-deserialize-handle📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		730.99
(-2.36%)		913.01
(80.06%)
client-sv1-subscribe-serialize-deserialize/client-sv1-subscribe-serialize-deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		597.50
(-1.66%)		729.21
(81.94%)
client-sv1-subscribe-serialize/client-sv1-subscribe-serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		208.34
(+0.65%)		231.26
(90.09%)
🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

🐰 Bencher Report

Branch2024-10-missing-transaction-mempool
Testbedsv2
Click to view all benchmark results
BenchmarkLatencyBenchmark Result
nanoseconds (ns)
(Result Δ%)		Upper Boundary
nanoseconds (ns)
(Limit %)
client_sv2_handle_message_common📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		43.74
(-2.27%)		48.67
(89.88%)
client_sv2_handle_message_mining📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		75.13
(-0.74%)		88.37
(85.02%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		14.65
(+0.00%)		14.78
(99.16%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard_serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		273.43
(+0.26%)		308.17
(88.73%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard_serialize_deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		596.31
(+1.18%)		703.64
(84.75%)
client_sv2_open_channel📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		148.60
(+0.99%)		154.17
(96.39%)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		278.07
(-2.38%)		324.12
(85.79%)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize_deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		371.09
(-1.18%)		431.30
(86.04%)
client_sv2_setup_connection📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		162.06
(-0.12%)		188.72
(85.87%)
client_sv2_setup_connection_serialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		464.73
(-0.39%)		601.38
(77.28%)
client_sv2_setup_connection_serialize_deserialize📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold		1,028.80
(+5.63%)		1,208.40
(85.14%)
🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

@stratum-mining stratum-mining deleted a comment from github-actions bot Nov 12, 2024
@stratum-mining stratum-mining deleted a comment from github-actions bot Nov 12, 2024
@stratum-mining stratum-mining deleted a comment from github-actions bot Nov 12, 2024
@stratum-mining stratum-mining deleted a comment from github-actions bot Nov 12, 2024
GitGab19
GitGab19 reviewed Nov 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@GitGab19 GitGab19 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.
I would change the [mempool_update_interval] parameter to 0.1 secs as we tested together.

GitGab19
GitGab19 reviewed Nov 13, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@GitGab19 GitGab19 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. I just left a minor comment. I would say that we could add an integration test for this scenario in the future. I remember we were tracking these issues to be tested by the new integration tests framework somewhere, but I can't find it anymore (cc @plebhash)

roles/jd-server/src/lib/job_declarator/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@Shourya742 Shourya742 force-pushed the 2024-10-missing-transaction-mempool branch from 05cb2a8 to b907e7d Compare November 13, 2024 10:33
@Shourya742 Shourya742 force-pushed the 2024-10-missing-transaction-mempool branch from b907e7d to 7cc0424 Compare November 13, 2024 15:37
@rrybarczyk rrybarczyk merged commit dee3cae into stratum-mining:main Nov 13, 2024
38 checks passed
@plebhash plebhash mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2024
Open
@plebhash
Copy link
Collaborator

LGTM. I just left a minor comment. I would say that we could add an integration test for this scenario in the future. I remember we were tracking these issues to be tested by the new integration tests framework somewhere, but I can't find it anymore (cc @plebhash)

it's #1077

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@GitGab19 GitGab19 GitGab19 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Custom transactions from JDC removed from mempool during update
4 participants
@Shourya742 @GitGab19 @plebhash @rrybarczyk