fix(block-production): fix bouncer, error reporting, debug messages #271
+2,757
−637
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
Trantorian1
requested changes
Sep 20, 2024
| @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ jobs: | |||
|
|
|||
| - uses: software-mansion/setup-scarb@v1 | |||
| with: | |||
| scarb-version: "2.7.0" | |||
| scarb-version: "2.8.2" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't this pose an issue with devnet as scarb 2.8.2 is not yet compatible with starknet? You can check with @apoorvsadana, I remember he had an issue related to this.
| .map_err(|e| BlockImportError::ComputeClassHash { class_hash: legacy.class_hash, error: e })?; | ||
| if class_hash != legacy.class_hash { | ||
| // TODO: For now we skip the exceptions for the legacy class hash mismatch | ||
| log::debug!("Class hash mismatch: got {:#x}, expected {:#x}", class_hash, legacy.class_hash,); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ehhhh, is this a good idea?
| column_sizes: registry | ||
| .register(IntGaugeVec::new(Opts::new("column_sizes", "Sizes of RocksDB columns"), &["column"])?)?, | ||
| }) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// Returns the total storage size |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we currently have the metrics behind a compilation flag? I'm just wondering as it could make sense if the resulting performance hit is noticeable. Might not be needed though, I saw we check the db only once every 200 blocks. This is more of a general observation and request for feedback.
| // - use u128 here because the multiplication would overflow | ||
| // - div by zero: current_pending_tick has been checked for 0 above | ||
| let reduced_cap = | ||
| |v: usize| (v as u128 * current_pending_tick as u128 / n_pending_ticks_per_block as u128) as usize; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
n_pending_ticks_per_block should be checked instead of current_pending_tick!
|
|
||
| fn parse_legacy_entrypoint(entrypoint: &LegacyContractEntryPoint, pre_0_11_0: bool) -> RawLegacyEntryPoint { | ||
| RawLegacyEntryPoint { | ||
| // This doesn't really matter as it doesn't affect class hashes. We simply try to guess as |
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.
This is on antiyro's current legacy class hash branch but i can rebase it on main if we want it merged before
Pull Request type
Please add the labels corresponding to the type of changes your PR introduces:
What is the current behavior?
Bouncer fraction is wrong
What is the new behavior?
Does this introduce a breaking change?
No