-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
Validators at proposed #555
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense to me assuming that getValidatorsAt(height: "proposed") is available.
@@ -98,77 +91,14 @@ func (v *CanonicalValidatorClient) GetValidatorSet( | |||
) (map[ids.NodeID]*validators.GetValidatorOutput, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should the comment for this function be updated to remove the sentence about falling back to getCurrentValidators?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM other than what others have commented
Co-authored-by: bernard-avalabs <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ian Suvak <[email protected]>
use local copy of install_avalanchego_release.sh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't know if we have a testing plan yet? But the code as-is LGTM
This PR would fail E2E if it wasn't working at all. I'll add an explicit E2E test that relies on proposed height != current p-chain height in a separate PR once a PR resolving #534 is up since that one will bring over latest tmpnet changes over from teleporter |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, relying of @geoff-vball's review for the deleted code as I don't have the context there.
Why this should be merged
Supersedes #506
How this works
getCurrentValidators
and replaces height passed intogetValidatorsAt
from the result ofGetCurrentHeight
to"proposed"
flag.I'm happy to add the
getCurrentValidators
fallback as well if it's preferred but assuming thatgetValidatorsAt(height: "proposed"
is available on public API this would be the safest way of fetching validator sets.How this was tested
Existing tests should pass. These tests fail against previous version of
avalanchego
with the code modifications here.How is this documented