Persist block validator state to the database #324
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #324 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 49.10% 48.89% -0.22%
==========================================
Files 161 161
Lines 16266 16525 +259
Branches 458 458
==========================================
+ Hits 7988 8080 +92
- Misses 7115 7276 +161
- Partials 1163 1169 +6 |
arbnode/transaction_streamer.go
Outdated
| if s.validator != nil { | ||
| s.validator.ReorgToBlock(targetBlock.NumberU64()) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to be concerned with atomicity here when exiting? If there are issues there I think it would only affect force kill since anything caught by the the signal handler should exit gracefully
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've changed this to call ReorgToBlock on the validator before the blockchain is reorg'd. That said, I'm thinking we'll want a more resilient scheme in the longer term, which I'll discuss a bit more in Tsahi's first review comment.
| log.Error("sequencer message bad format", "blockNr", validationEntry.BlockNumber, "msgNum", start.BatchNumber) | ||
| return | ||
| BlockHash: entry.PrevBlockHash, | ||
| SendRoot: entry.PrevSendRoot, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if arbstate.IsDASMessageHeaderByte(seqMsg[40]) { | ||
| if v.das == nil { | ||
| log.Error("No DAS configured, but sequencer message found with DAS header") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why did you remove that return?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If a DAS message is posted on a non-DAS chain, it should just be mostly ignored, but validation should still succeed. I'm changing this to gate the return behind a check of ArbitrumChainParams.DataAvailabilityCommittee.
| if err != nil { | ||
| log.Error("Couldn't retrieve message from DAS", "err", err) | ||
| return | ||
| log.Error("Failed to deserialize DAS message", "err", err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the DAS message can't be deserialized, it should just be ignored, but validation can still succeed
| @@ -489,43 +587,41 @@ func (v *BlockValidator) validate(ctx context.Context, validationEntry *validati | |||
| } | |||
| // stupid search for now, assuming the list will always be empty or very mall | |||
| for _, blockNr := range v.config.BlocksToRecord { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can remove this entire block and BlocksToRecord config, and replace it with a better way to manually record blocks. Not urgent..
Rebase failed
TODO: