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

Executable fork choice #1185

Merged
merged 33 commits into from
Jun 21, 2019
Merged

Executable fork choice #1185

merged 33 commits into from
Jun 21, 2019

Conversation

CarlBeek
Copy link
Contributor

This is a new PR which supersedes the old executable fork choice PR #1068. This was done because dev is so far ahead of the branch that #1068 was forked from so it was easier to start again.

Special thanks to @hwwhww and @vbuterin for the help tracking down a stupid bug.

@CarlBeek CarlBeek added scope:fork-choice milestone:June 30 freeze 🥶 Phase 0 spec freeze for long-lived cross-client testnet labels Jun 16, 2019
@CarlBeek CarlBeek added this to the Phase 0 Frozen milestone Jun 16, 2019
@protolambda
Copy link
Contributor

protolambda commented Jun 16, 2019

There's no good reason to make Store and other non-consensus data a SSZ object (Container). The typing is changing, and enforces proper ssz-types as elements. So this would break, and introducing python-dict support into ssz doesn't seem like the right solution. Instead just declare it as class Store: or class Store(object) (new python class style), and it'll work just fine.

@djrtwo
Copy link
Contributor

djrtwo commented Jun 20, 2019

hold up on my review before merge

specs/core/0_fork-choice.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
specs/core/0_fork-choice.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@djrtwo
Copy link
Contributor

djrtwo commented Jun 20, 2019

This needs a little bit of work wrt issues in #768.
I'm working on a PR to this PR :)

Copy link
Contributor

@djrtwo djrtwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some minor comments. The bulk of the substance of my review is found in #1198

specs/core/0_fork-choice.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
specs/core/0_fork-choice.md Show resolved Hide resolved
specs/core/0_fork-choice.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test_libs/pyspec/eth2spec/test/test_fork_choice.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@protolambda protolambda mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2019
11 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@djrtwo djrtwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed on merging this PR before #1198 to divide out the restructuring from modifications of handling state.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
milestone:June 30 freeze 🥶 Phase 0 spec freeze for long-lived cross-client testnet scope:fork-choice
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants