Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.

pvf-precheck: update implementers' guide #4612

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 29, 2021
Merged

Conversation

pepyakin
Copy link
Contributor

This commit incorporates the changes made to the runtime in the
following PRs:

Note that this PR does not include the description of the PVF
pre-checker subsystem. This should be addressed within
#4611

@pepyakin
Copy link
Contributor Author

Current dependencies on/for this PR:

This comment was auto-generated by Graphite.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the A0-please_review Pull request needs code review. label Dec 27, 2021
@pepyakin pepyakin added B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes C1-low PR touches the given topic and has a low impact on builders. D3-trivial 🧸 PR contains trivial changes in a runtime directory that do not require an audit. labels Dec 27, 2021
roadmap/implementers-guide/src/types/overseer-protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
1. All onboardings subscribed to the approved PVF pre-checking process will get scheduled and after passing 2 session boundaries they will be onboarded.
1. All upgrades subscribed to the approved PVF pre-checking process will get scheduled very similarly to the existing process. Upgrades with pre-checking are really the same process that is just delayed by the time required for pre-checking voting. In case of instant approval the mechanism is exactly the same.

In case, PVF pre-checking process was concluded with rejection, then all the requesting operations get cancelled. For onboarding it means it gets without movement: the lifecycle of such parachain is terminated on the `Onboarding` state and after rejection the lifecycle is none. That in turn means that the caller can attempt registering the parachain once more. For upgrading it means that the upgrade process is aborted: that flashes go-ahead signal with `Abort` flag. Rejection leads to removing the allegedly bad validation code from the chain storage.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This paragraph is hard to understand at least for me. I don't really get what For onboarding it means it gets without movement: really means.

This commit incorporates the changes made to the runtime in the
following PRs:

- #4408
- #4457
- #4540
- #4542
- #4581

Note that this PR does not include the description of the PVF
pre-checker subsystem. This should be addressed within
#4611

Co-authored-by: sandreim <54316454+sandreim@users.noreply.github.com>
@pepyakin pepyakin merged commit 0f1a671 into master Dec 29, 2021
@pepyakin pepyakin deleted the pep-pvf-impl-guide branch December 29, 2021 13:32
drahnr pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 4, 2022
This commit incorporates the changes made to the runtime in the
following PRs:

- #4408
- #4457
- #4540
- #4542
- #4581

Note that this PR does not include the description of the PVF
pre-checker subsystem. This should be addressed within
#4611

Co-authored-by: sandreim <54316454+sandreim@users.noreply.github.com>
Wizdave97 pushed a commit to ComposableFi/polkadot that referenced this pull request Feb 3, 2022
This commit incorporates the changes made to the runtime in the
following PRs:

- paritytech#4408
- paritytech#4457
- paritytech#4540
- paritytech#4542
- paritytech#4581

Note that this PR does not include the description of the PVF
pre-checker subsystem. This should be addressed within
paritytech#4611

Co-authored-by: sandreim <54316454+sandreim@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
A0-please_review Pull request needs code review. B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes C1-low PR touches the given topic and has a low impact on builders. D3-trivial 🧸 PR contains trivial changes in a runtime directory that do not require an audit.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants