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

fix: chainstore: do not get stuck in unhappy equivocation cases #11159

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 15, 2023

Conversation

arajasek
Copy link
Contributor

Related Issues

I was doing some manual testing / code inspection of #11104, and realized there's an unfortunate case here where we can get stuck, especially immediately after startup when the tipsets cache isn't populated

Proposed Changes

When refreshing our current head, try to find something within 5 epochs. If we find NOTHING (due to equivocation, or due to the tipsets cache being unpopulated), just stick with your equivocated head.

Additional Info

Checklist

Before you mark the PR ready for review, please make sure that:

  • Commits have a clear commit message.
  • PR title is in the form of of <PR type>: <area>: <change being made>
    • example: fix: mempool: Introduce a cache for valid signatures
    • PR type: fix, feat, build, chore, ci, docs, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
    • area, e.g. api, chain, state, market, mempool, multisig, networking, paych, proving, sealing, wallet, deps
  • New features have usage guidelines and / or documentation updates in
  • Tests exist for new functionality or change in behavior
  • CI is green

@arajasek arajasek requested a review from a team as a code owner August 11, 2023 21:14
}
} else {
// if we haven't found something, just stay with our equivocation-y head
newHeaviest = cs.heaviest
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there any reason not to just return nil here and move on?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes -- we still want to try and form a tipset at the new height we've been notified about, and take that if it's better?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think I'm convinced.

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