Skip to content
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

Make the spec consistent with #904 #974

Closed
pgrange opened this issue Jul 10, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #988
Closed

Make the spec consistent with #904 #974

pgrange opened this issue Jul 10, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #988
Milestone

Comments

@pgrange
Copy link
Contributor

pgrange commented Jul 10, 2023

          This would not typecheck if we would have written all this in agda :D

I think we need to change the signature of onReq to have ${\mathcal T}{req}^{#}$ as argument, then have an additional wait with $\forall h \in {\mathcal T}{req}^{#} : (h, \cdot) \in {\mathcal T}$ and a resolve statement defining ${\mathcal T}_{res}$, i.e. what I had done here (with $\hat {\mathcal T}$ this time though):

#728 (comment)

Originally posted by @ch1bo in #904 (comment)

@ch1bo
Copy link
Member

ch1bo commented Jul 20, 2023

  • Undo the allTxs cleanup
    • Make sure that does not degrade performance
  • Update the fig_offchain_prot.tex to match what is currently on master
    • No semantics change!
  • Prune transactions from seenTxs and allTxs when handling a ReqSn (code + spec)
    • in the spec
    • in the code
    • No test failures expected one way or the other here
  • Rename terms: seenTxs -> localTxs, seenUTxO -> localUTxO, allTxs stays the same
    • in the code
    • in the spec
  • Discuss open points and create follow-ups if not directly addressable
    • Why do we need to remove from allTxs when ttl runs out? We have undone that change in step 1 as there might be a valid scenario
    • Coherence of TxInvalid messages, e.g. when receiving invalid txs it's unintuitive to get informed about them; on the other hand, we would like to be informed if transactions are not valid to our local view
    • There is no equivalence for storing the fact that we requested a snapshot in the spec. Do we really need it? If yes, we should have a mention of it in the spec or update the formalism accordingly.
    • Prune transactions by id? We had that in the past, but not clear why we moved away of this?
      • No: we cannot, because transactions would not be "re-validated" and e.g. timed txs would not get dropped while we expect that
    • .. add any occurring in the steps above
  • Make prose and notation/variable sections in the spec consistent with the figure

@ch1bo ch1bo added this to the 0.12.0 milestone Aug 18, 2023
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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants