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

Implementing chainID dependency for versioned constants #3370

Closed
staheri14 opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

Implementing chainID dependency for versioned constants #3370

staheri14 opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
consensus breaking modifies block validity rules in a way that will break consensus unless all nodes update their rules needs:discussion item needs to be discussed as a group in the next sync. if marking an item, pls be prepped to talk WS: Big Blonks 🔭 Improving consensus critical gossiping protocols

Comments

@staheri14
Copy link
Contributor

As part of the knuu e2etests, we need to conduct tests under different values of the current versioned constant, specifically larger square sizes. Currently, the retrieval of these values depends on the app version. We previously attempted to introduce a new app version, namely the "testground" version. However, this required changes to the versioned module manager as well, to accommodate this new custom version and ensure correct behavior. This would result in introducing custom behaviors into the production code, which could increase the risk of errors for regular users.

To avoid such confusion and inadvertent mistakes, it has been decided to make versioned constants dependent on an additional parameter, i.e., chainID. Thus, while the app version remains unchanged, we can assign various values to the same constant based on the chainID.

@staheri14 staheri14 added the WS: Big Blonks 🔭 Improving consensus critical gossiping protocols label May 6, 2024
@evan-forbes evan-forbes added priority:high optional label to track the relative priority of planned items needs:discussion item needs to be discussed as a group in the next sync. if marking an item, pls be prepped to talk ice-box this label is automatically applied to all issues. it is removed after starting work and removed needs:priority priority:high optional label to track the relative priority of planned items needs:discussion item needs to be discussed as a group in the next sync. if marking an item, pls be prepped to talk labels May 6, 2024
@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

since this is consensus breaking, we don't want to stick this in v2 or even v3 until we have fully considered everything that is needed to safely add this

@evan-forbes evan-forbes added needs:discussion item needs to be discussed as a group in the next sync. if marking an item, pls be prepped to talk and removed ice-box this label is automatically applied to all issues. it is removed after starting work needs:discussion item needs to be discussed as a group in the next sync. if marking an item, pls be prepped to talk labels May 13, 2024
@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

this is blocking the merging of the network tests in knuu

@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

this is technically consensus breaking, so we're blocking until we cut the v2 branch.

@evan-forbes evan-forbes added the WS: V3 3️⃣ item is directly relevant to the v3 hardfork label May 27, 2024
@rootulp rootulp added the consensus breaking modifies block validity rules in a way that will break consensus unless all nodes update their rules label Jun 17, 2024
@evan-forbes evan-forbes added the needs:discussion item needs to be discussed as a group in the next sync. if marking an item, pls be prepped to talk label Jul 8, 2024
@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

we're using build tags in favor of this

@evan-forbes evan-forbes removed the WS: V3 3️⃣ item is directly relevant to the v3 hardfork label Jul 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
consensus breaking modifies block validity rules in a way that will break consensus unless all nodes update their rules needs:discussion item needs to be discussed as a group in the next sync. if marking an item, pls be prepped to talk WS: Big Blonks 🔭 Improving consensus critical gossiping protocols
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants