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: performance is not optimal when blocklist is empty #1658

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 23, 2024

Conversation

yihuang
Copy link
Collaborator

@yihuang yihuang commented Oct 23, 2024

👮🏻👮🏻👮🏻 !!!! 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

  • New Features

    • Enhanced transaction validation and proposal processing with a fast path for accepting transactions when the blocklist is empty.
    • Introduced improvements for generating test transactions in parallel and a load generator with retry functionality.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Resolved issues with validator benchmarks, node shutdown, state overwrites in debug trace APIs, and benchmark transaction conflicts.
  • Documentation

    • Updated CHANGELOG.md to reflect changes, improvements, and the release date of October 14, 2024.

@yihuang yihuang requested a review from a team as a code owner October 23, 2024 04:17
@yihuang yihuang requested review from mmsqe and calvinaco and removed request for a team October 23, 2024 04:17
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 23, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces several updates across different components of the project. Key changes include bug fixes for validator benchmarks, node shutdown signals, state overwrites in debug trace APIs, and benchmark transaction conflicts. Improvements allow for parallel test transaction generation, enhanced load generation with error retries, and optimizations for empty block-lists. The CHANGELOG.md has been updated to reflect these changes, including a new entry for optimizations and references to specific pull requests. Modifications in app/proposal.go streamline transaction validation and proposal processing by implementing fast paths when the blocklist is empty.

Changes

File Change Summary
CHANGELOG.md Updated to include bug fixes and improvements, new entry for "Optimize when block-list is empty," and release date of October 14, 2024.
app/proposal.go Modified ValidateTransaction and ProcessProposalHandler methods to include fast paths for accepting transactions when the blocklist is empty. Error handling and existing checks retained.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • calvinaco
  • mmsqe
  • thomas-nguy

Poem

In the meadow where bunnies play,
Changes hop in, brightening the day.
Fast paths for transactions, oh what a treat,
With block-lists empty, the process is sweet!
Bugs fixed and improvements, all in a row,
Hooray for the updates, let the good times flow! 🐰✨


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]>
Copy link
Collaborator

@mmsqe mmsqe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍🏻

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 23, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 34.91%. Comparing base (572aae7) to head (04f35e2).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
app/proposal.go 0.00% 8 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1658       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   16.64%   34.91%   +18.27%     
===========================================
  Files          72      123       +51     
  Lines        6212    11811     +5599     
===========================================
+ Hits         1034     4124     +3090     
- Misses       5055     7273     +2218     
- Partials      123      414      +291     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
app/proposal.go 20.58% <0.00%> (-1.76%) ⬇️

... and 69 files with indirect coverage changes

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: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
app/proposal.go (1)

127-130: Consider comprehensive testing strategy for fast paths.

The fast path optimizations in both ValidateTransaction and ProcessProposalHandler are well-designed and will improve performance when the blocklist is empty. However, these critical paths need comprehensive testing to ensure reliability.

Consider adding the following test scenarios:

  1. Empty blocklist behavior
  2. Transition from non-empty to empty blocklist
  3. Performance benchmarks comparing with/without optimization

Would you like me to help create a test suite covering these scenarios?

Also applies to: 155-158

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 127-130: app/proposal.go#L127-L130
Added lines #L127 - L130 were not covered by tests

CHANGELOG.md (1)

19-19: Consider making the changelog entry more descriptive.

The current entry could be more descriptive about the specific optimization being made. Based on the PR objectives and AI summary, consider expanding it to better reflect that this optimizes transaction validation and proposal processing when the blocklist is empty.

-* [#1658](https://github.com/crypto-org-chain/cronos/pull/1658) Optimize when block-list is empty.
+* [#1658](https://github.com/crypto-org-chain/cronos/pull/1658) Optimize transaction validation and proposal processing when block-list is empty.
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 572aae7 and 1a2bfb4.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
  • app/proposal.go (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
app/proposal.go

[warning] 127-130: app/proposal.go#L127-L130
Added lines #L127 - L130 were not covered by tests


[warning] 155-158: app/proposal.go#L155-L158
Added lines #L155 - L158 were not covered by tests

🔇 Additional comments (1)
app/proposal.go (1)

127-130: LGTM! Fast path optimization looks good.

The early return when blocklist is empty is a good optimization that avoids unnecessary signature verification and address checks.

Let's verify the test coverage:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for tests covering the ValidateTransaction method
rg -A 5 "func.*Test.*ValidateTransaction" 

Consider adding a comment explaining the performance benefit:

+  // Fast path: when blocklist is empty, all transactions are valid
+  // This avoids expensive signature verification and address checks
   if len(h.blocklist) == 0 {
     return nil
   }
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 127-130: app/proposal.go#L127-L130
Added lines #L127 - L130 were not covered by tests

app/proposal.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@yihuang yihuang enabled auto-merge October 23, 2024 04:59
@yihuang yihuang added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 23, 2024
Merged via the queue into crypto-org-chain:main with commit 8a698f4 Oct 23, 2024
45 of 46 checks passed
@yihuang yihuang deleted the e2ee-fast-path branch October 23, 2024 07:03
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