1045 - additional fork handling #1048
Conversation
piotrkosecki
requested review from
SiddharthV1,
vishakh,
anonymoussprocket and
bhaskarkishore
| fork-handling { | ||
| backtrack-levels: 100 //how many levels back we should check for the forks | ||
| backtrack-levels: ${?CONSEIL_LORRE_FORK_HANDLING_BAKCTRACK_LEVELS} | ||
| backtrack-interval: 120 // every how many iterations we should check for forks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you sure 100 levels will be enough every 120 iterations?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've used default values from the #1045 but to be honest to get right values here is trickier than it seems.
For example:
Let's assume that blocks on depth 10 and greater from head are safe from forks.
We started Lorre which is fully indexed and there are no new blocks in the node.
Backtracking forks check looks at the last 10 indexed blocks and everything is ok.
Then it waits number of intervals for a next check. Now we need to estimate amount of blocks that will be baked during this time.
And that depends on few things: sleep_interval and backtrack-interval.
I believe with those assumptions we should make backtrack-levels to be ((Amount_of_blocks_baked_during(sleep_interval) + Amount_of_blocks_baked_during_processing) * backtrack-interval) + 10 + 1.
And that should be an estimate.
We can tune it afterwards, but I definitely think we should follow this rule: backtrack-levels > backtrack-interval
conseil-lorre/src/main/scala/tech/cryptonomic/conseil/indexer/tezos/TezosIndexer.scala
Show resolved
Hide resolved
conseil-lorre/src/main/scala/tech/cryptonomic/conseil/indexer/tezos/TezosIndexer.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
conseil-lorre/src/main/scala/tech/cryptonomic/conseil/indexer/tezos/TezosIndexer.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...e/src/main/scala/tech/cryptonomic/conseil/indexer/tezos/forks/BacktracingForkProcessor.scala
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
The external user will be puzzled if they are missing all token data, no?
…On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 8:40 AM Piotr Kosecki ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In conseil-lorre/src/main/resources/application.conf
<#1048 (comment)>:
> fork-handling-is-on: false
fork-handling-is-on: ${?CONSEIL_LORRE_FORK_DETECTION_ENABLED}
- registered-tokens-is-on: true
+ registered-tokens-is-on: false
I turned it off because of my tests, but now thinking about it if we are
publishing it to the public as an external user I would probably want this
to be turned off.
I can change it if you wish.
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1048 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHDKW27GT7KVCMS5SHKAUTUKEUVFANCNFSM5G7WHR3Q>
.
|
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
no, this will get token data from json file which has basic registered tokens config(and in the future hopefully more) |
resolves #1045
This PR adds another fork handling behaviour, as described in the ticket #1045 and also adds big maps realated tables invalidation. Also fixes tests and some minor things.