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

[WIP] Epic/aura consensus #24

Draft
wants to merge 135 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

[WIP] Epic/aura consensus #24

wants to merge 135 commits into from

Conversation

blazejkrzak
Copy link

@blazejkrzak blazejkrzak commented Oct 8, 2020

This pull request is against master, because we want to track epic branch changeset.
Epic branch is treated as current upstream before we acheive state, when we can merge to go-ethereum repository.

atif and others added 30 commits September 14, 2020 22:46
- omitted any forks
- alloc is very basic
- validators are static
- omitted any forks
- alloc is very basic
- validators are static
- omitted any forks
- alloc is very basic
- validators are static
- added dump from parity block 0
- omitted any forks
- alloc is very basic
- validators are static
- added dump from parity block 0
- added basic struct for test and done go mod vendor to be able to run tests
- added parityChainSpec
- moved to `bindings` package
- added parityChainSpec
- moved to `bindings` package
- some panic, lets resolve it
- added parityChainSpec
- moved to `bindings` package
- no more panic
- added parityChainSpec
- moved to `bindings` package
- no more panic
- consider do not break naming convention
- added parityChainSpec
- moved to `bindings` package
- no more panic
- consider do not break naming convention
- it should work, lets test that e2e
- added parityChainSpec
- moved to `bindings` package
- no more panic
- consider do not break naming convention
- it should work, lets test that e2e
- added parityChainSpec
- moved to `bindings` package
- no more panic
- consider do not break naming convention
- it should work, lets test that e2e
- injected block 0 from parity outcome
- genesis is created from wizard_genesis.go
- added module node with image handling
- nodes authorize before starting to seal in clique and aura
- time after implemented, not time.sleep
- todo: Timestamp in block is 0, look for `TODO: WTF?`
- genesis is created from wizard_genesis.go
- added module node with image handling
- nodes authorize before starting to seal in clique and aura
- time after implemented, not time.sleep
TODO: revert `authorize before starting to seal in clique and aura`
consensus/aura/aura.go Show resolved Hide resolved
consensus/aura/aura.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ts := header.Time

step := ts / a.config.Period
println(header.Number.Uint64())

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This println should be removed.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

agree

@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
// Copyright 2017 The go-ethereum Authors

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@blazejkrzak i think, we do not need this file because we do not take any snapshot for checkpointing. I guess, this feature is used for clique and we just copy and paste it when i ported from goerli

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

good point, lets check it out

@blazejkrzak blazejkrzak added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 5, 2020
@blazejkrzak blazejkrzak self-assigned this Nov 5, 2020
@blazejkrzak blazejkrzak added this to the AuthorityRound Engine milestone Nov 5, 2020
@blazejkrzak blazejkrzak linked an issue Nov 5, 2020 that may be closed by this pull request
Now we can handle std headers and aura headers at once
@blazejkrzak
Copy link
Author

@atif-konasl why have you closed that?

@blazejkrzak blazejkrzak reopened this Jun 29, 2021
@blazejkrzak blazejkrzak changed the title Epic/aura consensus [WIP] Epic/aura consensus Jun 29, 2021
@blazejkrzak blazejkrzak marked this pull request as draft June 29, 2021 07:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Refactor epic/aura-consensus
5 participants