Handle failing fee conversion #2159
Merged
Conversation
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
|
Coverage from tests in coverage: 50.0% of statements across all listed packagescoverage: 63.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul coverage: 40.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/announce coverage: 54.6% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend coverage: 0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/backendtest coverage: 24.3% of statements in consensus/istanbul/backend/internal/replica coverage: 65.1% of statements in consensus/istanbul/core coverage: 45.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/db coverage: 0.0% of statements in consensus/istanbul/proxy coverage: 64.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul/uptime coverage: 51.8% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator coverage: 79.2% of statements in consensus/istanbul/validator/random |
|
|
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2159 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 55.08% 55.07% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 681 681
Lines 114405 114413 +8
==========================================
- Hits 63015 63014 -1
+ Misses 47509 47504 -5
- Partials 3881 3895 +14
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
The declaration is repeated multiple times and I am about to change it, so it is nice to pull it into a typedef.
#2134 leads us to believe that there are failures happening in production. This change * Handles error cases by skipping processing of respective txs instead of segfaulting * Logs tx information in these cases to better understand why this is happening Skipping transactions where conversion is not possible is analogous to handling other cases of bad transactions. But since the linked issue only happens for some nodes, I am not sure if this is the right thing to do or if we should intentionally panic in that case to avoid harder to debug consensus failures due to having different nodes process a different set of transactions.
95e3a15 to
376bf8b
Compare
carterqw2
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
#2134 leads us to
believe that there are failures happening in production. This change
of segfaulting
happening
Skipping transactions where conversion is not possible is analogous to
handling other cases of bad transactions. But since the linked issue
only happens for some nodes, I am not sure if this is the right thing to
do or if we should intentionally panic in that case to avoid harder to
debug consensus failures due to having different nodes process a
different set of transactions.
I would not recommend merging this PR before Gingerbread unless we are very confident that we are doing the right thing.
Very basic error logging for the problematic case has already been merged in #2157.