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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

feature: (alan) filter committee duties per slot validator duties #467

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jul 22, 2024
Merged

feature: (alan) filter committee duties per slot validator duties #467

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
940c8a3
Filter shares for slot `CommitteeRunner` based on validators that hav…
y0sher Jul 17, 2024
8c0266d
Filter duty and create share map according to owned validators
MatheusFranco99 Jul 22, 2024
56a6b7d
Add test: start duty with no shares for duty's validators
MatheusFranco99 Jul 22, 2024
35deb61
Add test: happy flow for committee with fraction of duty's validators
MatheusFranco99 Jul 22, 2024
1e05ab1
Generate JSON tests
MatheusFranco99 Jul 22, 2024
3d5887f
Apply suggestions
MatheusFranco99 Jul 22, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 8 additions & 1 deletion ssv/committee.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -41,7 +41,14 @@ func (c *Committee) StartDuty(duty *types.CommitteeDuty) error {
if _, exists := c.Runners[duty.Slot]; exists {
return errors.New(fmt.Sprintf("CommitteeRunner for slot %d already exists", duty.Slot))
}
c.Runners[duty.Slot] = c.CreateRunnerFn(c.Share)
dutyShares := make(map[spec.ValidatorIndex]*types.Share)
for _, bduty := range duty.ValidatorDuties {
if _, exists := c.Share[bduty.ValidatorIndex]; !exists {
return fmt.Errorf("no share for validator %d", bduty.ValidatorIndex)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

shouldn't this be continue simply?
are we sure we want to fail the run just because of one miss?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, from the spec perspective, I would also say continue is better. On the other hand, in ssv, it's strange that the operator doesn't the share for the duty since he requested the duty for this validator.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree

}
dutyShares[bduty.ValidatorIndex] = c.Share[bduty.ValidatorIndex]
}
c.Runners[duty.Slot] = c.CreateRunnerFn(dutyShares)
return c.Runners[duty.Slot].StartNewDuty(duty, c.CommitteeMember.GetQuorum())
}

Expand Down