-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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
WIP: Fix Cliff Val Bug Caught in Simulation #2332
Conversation
// validator was newly bonded and has greater power | ||
k.beginUnbondingValidator(ctx, oldCliffVal) | ||
if bytes.Equal(validatorToBond.OperatorAddr, affectedValidator.OperatorAddr) { | ||
if bytes.Compare(affectedValRank, oldCliffValRank) > 0 { |
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.
should these two if statement's want to be combined? (if enters the first but not the second this function won't move on to the else statement below - doesn't sound like the desired functionality)
Think we need to understand the reasons for this solution a bit more... (not sure if worth if for upcoming refactor though).. This fix doesn't really make sense to me
I actually want to close this. I don't fully understand what is happening and I do not feel comfortable with the changes in this PR. Ultimately this boils down to intra-block validator state transitions involving cliff validators, particularly of equal power. Once #2332 gets going, this will be obsolete anyway. My gut tells me this is a very tricky corner-case and I would think we should just proceed with the release without some fix for this? Idk... |
I don't think we should proceed with the release without fixing this, but likely the fix should be made via the refactoring out of the cliff validator altogether |
So do you recommend we start on |
Sorry which issue did you mean to point too? that's THIS issue. If you're referring to the Radical Refactor 🤙 then yes we need to work on that one ASAP - but will certainly add delay to the release if we block on it. |
err, I meant #2312 , sorry. |
TODO:
Note:
$ make test_sim_gaia_fast
will still fail due to #2224.closes: #2289
Targeted PR against correct branch (see CONTRIBUTING.md)
Linked to github-issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work.
Wrote tests
Updated relevant documentation (
docs/
)Added entries in
PENDING.md
with issue #rereviewed
Files changed
in the github PR explorerFor Admin Use: