-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 204
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
Fix transition block #6724
Merged
AdoAdoAdo
merged 9 commits into
equivalent-proofs-stabilization-2
from
fix_transition_block
Jan 22, 2025
+59
−17
Merged
Fix transition block #6724
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9ea746a
deps update
sstanculeanu fa83110
updated core go
sstanculeanu 6329556
updated flag check after review
sstanculeanu e7c6067
added proper setProbableHighestNonce
sstanculeanu 3cb0133
Merge branch 'equivalent-proofs-stabilization-2' of https://github.co…
sstanculeanu 903e4cf
rollback invalid unlocks
sstanculeanu ca7c322
reverted `updated flag check after review` commit
sstanculeanu 245cb71
further fixes on notarization
sstanculeanu ebf0fb5
Merge branch 'equivalent-proofs-stabilization-2' of https://github.co…
sstanculeanu File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
probably not needed if we handle inside the block tracker the check that there is a proof.
Will take the change of block tracker in a separate PR.
Can you add a check somewhere on the processing (for both leader and other nodes - in create block for leader & process block for others) that every used block has proof
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 should already be covered:
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.
when verifying the proof for the header not the prev proof, we should not use
common.IsFlagEnabledAfterEpochsStartBlock(header, sp.enableEpochsHandler, common.EquivalentMessagesFlag)
so I think
func (sp *shardProcessor) checkMetaHdrFinality(header data.HeaderHandler) error
has the wrong check