Skip to content

go/consensus/api: Add method GetBlockResults #6180

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

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 8, 2025

Conversation

peternose
Copy link
Contributor

@peternose peternose commented May 6, 2025

Method GetBlockResults is needed by the light client node to serve events.

If performance degrades due to unmarshalling block results metadata in every GetEvents call, we can retain the backend interface and use GetCometBFTBlockResults if implemented, falling back to GetBlockResults otherwise.

Copy link

netlify bot commented May 6, 2025

Deploy Preview for oasisprotocol-oasis-core canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 246a058
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/oasisprotocol-oasis-core/deploys/681bd062718f3d0008525461

@peternose peternose force-pushed the peternose/feature/block-results branch from 90a4447 to d9d120c Compare May 6, 2025 03:47
@peternose peternose marked this pull request as ready for review May 6, 2025 04:08
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 6, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 63.14554% with 157 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 64.31%. Comparing base (5f9c3c0) to head (246a058).
Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/consensus/cometbft/vault/events.go 41.37% 30 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
go/consensus/cometbft/roothash/events.go 64.61% 16 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
go/consensus/cometbft/staking/events.go 66.17% 16 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
go/consensus/cometbft/api/api.go 54.05% 16 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
go/consensus/cometbft/registry/events.go 70.00% 10 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
go/consensus/cometbft/governance/events.go 70.21% 10 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
go/consensus/cometbft/full/common.go 70.83% 4 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
go/consensus/cometbft/vault/vault.go 12.50% 7 Missing ⚠️
go/consensus/api/grpc.go 64.70% 3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
go/consensus/cometbft/full/archive.go 25.00% 2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
... and 4 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6180      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.36%   64.31%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         646      651       +5     
  Lines       65217    65266      +49     
==========================================
- Hits        41979    41978       -1     
- Misses      18350    18393      +43     
- Partials     4888     4895       +7     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@peternose peternose force-pushed the peternose/feature/block-results branch from d9d120c to 2e81660 Compare May 7, 2025 12:26
Copy link
Member

@kostko kostko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would be good to open an issue to benchmark the difference (if any) before release.

@peternose peternose force-pushed the peternose/feature/block-results branch from 2e81660 to 9dd8dd2 Compare May 7, 2025 21:25
@peternose
Copy link
Contributor Author

Would be good to open an issue to benchmark the difference (if any) before release.

Maybe it is easier to just optimize for full nodes. See the last commit.

@peternose peternose force-pushed the peternose/feature/block-results branch from 9dd8dd2 to 246a058 Compare May 7, 2025 21:28
@peternose peternose merged commit 5124966 into master May 8, 2025
5 of 7 checks passed
@peternose peternose deleted the peternose/feature/block-results branch May 8, 2025 08:27
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