This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 11, 2024. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Method to list incomplete checkpoints #207
Method to list incomplete checkpoints #207
Changes from 6 commits
10189b4
db15c86
e1129fe
4df9cf9
9a9a12d
8c176ac
88e2c74
7cbddee
5bcfd84
e5f4e7c
e047b9e
e806bfc
b0dbbed
7e14e7a
10dc4f1
eccc940
2be6d13
0200679
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
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.
When is this function expected to be called externally? The idea is that this function should be called when there is no longer need to store the checkpoint signatures because it has already been submitted up, right?
If this is the case, would you mind adding this description in the comments so we are explcit?
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.
correct
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.
Updated description
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.
How do we expect to set the
newIndex
for a specific garbage collection?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.
If I understand correctly, the caller should know what checkpoints have been processed in the parent and can be removed in the child
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.
We should also clear the
bottomUpCheckpointsLegacy
while it exists.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.
Those two bottom-up checkpoint types are probably misleading. But
bottomUpCheckpointsLegacy
is not used in implementing the new bottom-up checkpoint mechanism. It is in the code just to build it without removing all libraries, etc.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.
Okay, I understand we want to get rid of it, just wanted to highlight that since I'm relying on it in consensus-shipyard/fendermint#286 due to the lack of any alternatives, technically it will have data in it as long as it exists and someone sends a bottom-up message this way.
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.
It will be fixed in #214
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.
Do you mind explaining here that the retention is needed so the checkpoint and signatures are available so relayers can submit the chceckpoint? It wasn't clear to me the purpose of the
RetentionIndex
on a first read. Thanks!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.
retentionIndex
is the number of the first incomplete checkpoints we must have to implement checkpointingAll checkpoints with a height less than
retentionIndex
may be removed from the history if we want.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.
I meant in the code, so it is clear :) But no need if you feel it may be redundant or clear once the end-to-end is implemented.
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.
Updated the code