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

Problem: benchmark txs have unexpected conflicts #1652

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 21, 2024

Conversation

yihuang
Copy link
Collaborator

@yihuang yihuang commented Oct 21, 2024

Solution:

  • use different recipient addresses

👮🏻👮🏻👮🏻 !!!! REFERENCE THE PROBLEM YOUR ARE SOLVING IN THE PR TITLE AND DESCRIBE YOUR SOLUTION HERE !!!! DO NOT FORGET !!!! 👮🏻👮🏻👮🏻

PR Checklist:

  • Have you read the CONTRIBUTING.md?
  • Does your PR follow the C4 patch requirements?
  • Have you rebased your work on top of the latest master?
  • Have you checked your code compiles? (make)
  • Have you included tests for any non-trivial functionality?
  • Have you checked your code passes the unit tests? (make test)
  • Have you checked your code formatting is correct? (go fmt)
  • Have you checked your basic code style is fine? (golangci-lint run)
  • If you added any dependencies, have you checked they do not contain any known vulnerabilities? (go list -json -m all | nancy sleuth)
  • If your changes affect the client infrastructure, have you run the integration test?
  • If your changes affect public APIs, does your PR follow the C4 evolution of public contracts?
  • If your code changes public APIs, have you incremented the crate version numbers and documented your changes in the CHANGELOG.md?
  • If you are contributing for the first time, please read the agreement in CONTRIBUTING.md now and add a comment to this pull request stating that your PR is in accordance with the Developer's Certificate of Origin.

Thank you for your code, it's appreciated! :)

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Resolved unexpected conflicts in benchmark transactions.
    • Fixed issues with single validator benchmarks and node shutdown signals.
    • Addressed multisig account failures and query issues for address-by-account-number.
  • Improvements

    • Enhanced transaction generation by allowing dynamic sender addresses.
    • Implemented parallel generation of test transactions on a single node.
    • Added support for batch mode in benchmarks and improved load generation with error retries.
  • Documentation

    • Updated CHANGELOG.md to reflect recent bug fixes and improvements.

Solution:
- use different recipient addresses
@yihuang yihuang requested a review from a team as a code owner October 21, 2024 04:00
@yihuang yihuang requested review from mmsqe and JayT106 and removed request for a team October 21, 2024 04:00
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 21, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces updates to the CHANGELOG.md and modifies the transaction.py file in the benchmark module. In CHANGELOG.md, entries are added under "Bug Fixes" and "Improvements" for both the unreleased version and v1.4.0-rc1, detailing fixes for benchmark transactions and enhancements in transaction handling. The transaction.py file sees changes in function signatures to allow dynamic sender addresses in transaction creation, improving flexibility in transaction management.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
CHANGELOG.md - Added bug fixes for benchmark transactions and improvements in transaction handling for unreleased and v1.4.0-rc1.
- Notable entries include fixes for unexpected conflicts, transaction generation enhancements, and updates to memiavl.
testground/benchmark/benchmark/transaction.py - Updated simple_transfer_tx and erc20_transfer_tx to include a sender parameter instead of a hardcoded recipient.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • devashishdxt
  • mmsqe
  • thomas-nguy

🐇 In the meadow, transactions flow,
With sender's choice, they brightly glow.
Bugs are fixed, improvements shine,
In the code, all works align.
Hops of joy, let changes ring,
For every fix, a rabbit's spring! 🐰✨


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

CHANGELOG.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: yihuang <[email protected]>
@yihuang yihuang enabled auto-merge October 21, 2024 04:04
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 21, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 16.64%. Comparing base (9080ded) to head (a9a1eb3).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1652   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   16.64%   16.64%           
=======================================
  Files          72       72           
  Lines        6212     6212           
=======================================
  Hits         1034     1034           
  Misses       5055     5055           
  Partials      123      123           

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
testground/benchmark/benchmark/transaction.py (2)

70-70: LGTM: Consistent change, minor suggestion for clarity

The modification to pass acct.address as the first argument to job.create_tx is consistent with the changes made to the transaction creation functions. This ensures that each transaction is created with the correct sender address.

For improved clarity, consider renaming the sender parameter in the transaction creation functions to recipient, as it's being used as the destination of the transfer. This would make the code more self-explanatory and align better with the typical terminology used in transaction systems.


Line range hint 1-185: Summary of review findings

  1. The changes to simple_transfer_tx and _do_job are consistent and align well with the PR objectives of using different recipient addresses to avoid conflicts.

  2. There's a potential issue in erc20_transfer_tx where the sender is also used as the recipient, which may not accurately represent real-world transaction patterns for benchmarking purposes.

  3. Consider renaming the sender parameter to recipient in the transaction creation functions for improved clarity.

Next steps:

  1. Verify the intended behavior of the ERC20 transfers and consider separating the sender and recipient roles if necessary.
  2. Implement the suggested renaming of the sender parameter for improved code clarity.
  3. After addressing these points, the changes should be ready for final testing and merge.
CHANGELOG.md (3)

Line range hint 13-24: Consider adding more details to the v1.1.0-rc0 entry.

The v1.1.0-rc0 entry contains a significant number of changes, including state machine breaking changes and major improvements. It would be helpful to provide more context or brief explanations for some of the more impactful changes, such as the integration of ICA module or the support for stateful precompiled contracts.

🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool

[grammar] ~8-~8: The word ‘shutdown’ is a noun. Did you mean the verb “shut down”?
Context: ...-chain/cronos/pull/1647) Fix node can't shutdown by signal. * (testground)[#1652](https:...

(SHUTDOWN)


Line range hint 45-54: Consider grouping similar changes together.

In the v1.0.7 entry, there are multiple entries related to ethermint updates. Consider grouping these changes together for better readability and organization.

🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool

[grammar] ~8-~8: The word ‘shutdown’ is a noun. Did you mean the verb “shut down”?
Context: ...-chain/cronos/pull/1647) Fix node can't shutdown by signal. * (testground)[#1652](https:...

(SHUTDOWN)


Line range hint 70-453: Consider summarizing older versions.

The changelog contains detailed information for many older versions. While this historical information is valuable, consider summarizing or archiving older versions to keep the main changelog more focused on recent and upcoming changes.

🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool

[grammar] ~8-~8: The word ‘shutdown’ is a noun. Did you mean the verb “shut down”?
Context: ...-chain/cronos/pull/1647) Fix node can't shutdown by signal. * (testground)[#1652](https:...

(SHUTDOWN)

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9080ded and a9a1eb3.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
  • testground/benchmark/benchmark/transaction.py (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (7)
testground/benchmark/benchmark/transaction.py (2)

Line range hint 25-32: LGTM: Changes align with PR objectives

The modification to include a sender parameter and use it as the to address aligns well with the PR's goal of using different recipient addresses for transactions. This change should help avoid the unexpected conflicts mentioned in the PR objectives.


Line range hint 36-47: Verify the intended behavior of ERC20 transfers

The function now uses the sender parameter as both the transaction initiator and the recipient of the ERC20 transfer. This results in users transferring tokens to themselves, which may not be the intended behavior for benchmarking purposes.

Consider introducing a separate recipient parameter to ensure transfers occur between different addresses, which would better simulate real-world transaction patterns and potentially reveal any conflicts or issues that the original PR aimed to address.

Would you like me to propose a modification to separate the sender and recipient roles?

CHANGELOG.md (5)

9-11: LGTM: Latest version changes look good.

The changes for v1.1.0-rc1 address important bug fixes related to upgrade migration and IAVL updates. These improvements enhance the stability and reliability of the system.


Line range hint 26-33: Verify the impact of removing the gravity module.

The removal of the gravity module in v1.1.0-rc0 is a significant change. Ensure that this change has been thoroughly tested and that any dependent functionalities have been adjusted accordingly.

🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool

[grammar] ~8-~8: The word ‘shutdown’ is a noun. Did you mean the verb “shut down”?
Context: ...-chain/cronos/pull/1647) Fix node can't shutdown by signal. * (testground)[#1652](https:...

(SHUTDOWN)


Line range hint 35-43: LGTM: Bug fixes and improvements are well documented.

The changelog provides a clear list of bug fixes and improvements, which is helpful for users and developers to understand the changes in each version.

🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool

[grammar] ~8-~8: The word ‘shutdown’ is a noun. Did you mean the verb “shut down”?
Context: ...-chain/cronos/pull/1647) Fix node can't shutdown by signal. * (testground)[#1652](https:...

(SHUTDOWN)


Line range hint 56-68: LGTM: Recent versions are well documented.

The changelog entries for recent versions (v1.0.5, v1.0.6, v1.0.7) provide clear and concise information about the changes, which is helpful for users tracking the project's progress.

🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool

[grammar] ~8-~8: The word ‘shutdown’ is a noun. Did you mean the verb “shut down”?
Context: ...-chain/cronos/pull/1647) Fix node can't shutdown by signal. * (testground)[#1652](https:...

(SHUTDOWN)


Line range hint 1-453: Overall, the changelog is well-maintained and informative.

The CHANGELOG.md file provides a comprehensive history of the Cronos project's development, with detailed information about changes, improvements, and bug fixes for each version. It's particularly useful for tracking the project's progress and understanding the impact of updates.

To further improve the changelog:

  1. Consider adding more context to significant changes, especially in recent versions.
  2. Group similar changes together within each version for better organization.
  3. Summarize or archive older versions to keep the main changelog focused on recent and upcoming changes.

These minor adjustments would enhance the changelog's readability and make it even more valuable for users and developers.

🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool

[grammar] ~8-~8: The word ‘shutdown’ is a noun. Did you mean the verb “shut down”?
Context: ...-chain/cronos/pull/1647) Fix node can't shutdown by signal. * (testground)[#1652](https:...

(SHUTDOWN)

@yihuang yihuang added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 21, 2024
Merged via the queue into crypto-org-chain:main with commit ad53734 Oct 21, 2024
43 checks passed
@yihuang yihuang deleted the fix-block-stm-conflicts branch October 21, 2024 04:56
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.

2 participants