Open ComputerKeeda opened 3 weeks ago
Why not restrict the addresses responsible for verifying the pods? I think allowing just anyone to verify the pod can lead to potential misuse (e.g Sybil attacks). Restricting the verification process to specific, authorized users or addresses would ensure that only trusted parties perform the audit. This would improve the reliability of the data, prevent excessive or irrelevant verifications, and maintain the integrity of the verification process. Thoughts?
Description: There is an issue in the
AuditSequencer
function where if multiple users verify the same pod multiple times, theTotalVerifiedPodCount
in the station metrics is incremented each time. This results in an inflated count that doesn't accurately represent unique pod verifications.Current Behavior:
TotalVerifiedPodCount
is incremented for every verification, even if the pod has already been verified by another user or the same user.Steps to Reproduce:
Pod-1
).TotalVerifiedPodCount
is incremented for both verifications, even though only one pod was verified.Expected Behavior:
TotalVerifiedPodCount
should only increment when a pod is verified for the first time, not for subsequent audits by different users.Suggested Fix: We should not prevent multiple users from verifying the same pod. It's beneficial to allow multiple users to verify a single pod, as this can enhance the reliability and trustworthiness of the audit process.
Instead of blocking further verifications, we should introduce a system to record the verifiers' addresses and track how many unique verifiers have audited the pod. Here's a proposal:
ExtTrackSchemaEngagement
to store the addresses of users who have verified the pod. Each time a user verifies the pod, their address is added to this list.TotalVerifiedPodCount
Only Once: Modify the logic to incrementTotalVerifiedPodCount
only when the pod is verified for the first time (whenIsVerified
is false).By introducing this verifiers list, we ensure that:
TotalVerifiedPodCount
.Context: