Closed omerfirmak closed 2 years ago
This is the root cause of our full nodes in production falling behind.
Merging #3201 (ed697a7) into v0.x.x (5be86bb) will increase coverage by
0.04%
. The diff coverage is100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## v0.x.x #3201 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 79.21% 79.25% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 209 209
Lines 18944 18982 +38
==========================================
+ Hits 15006 15044 +38
Misses 3938 3938
Flag | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
integration | 20.27% <ø> (ø) |
|
unittests | 87.43% <100.00%> (+0.02%) |
:arrow_up: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
source/agora/consensus/state/ValidatorSet.d | 86.77% <100.00%> (+1.56%) |
:arrow_up: |
source/agora/test/NetworkDiscovery.d | 84.09% <0.00%> (-4.55%) |
:arrow_down: |
source/agora/flash/Node.d | 80.67% <0.00%> (-0.43%) |
:arrow_down: |
source/agora/consensus/protocol/Nominator.d | 92.45% <0.00%> (-0.18%) |
:arrow_down: |
source/agora/consensus/Ledger.d | 97.48% <0.00%> (-0.01%) |
:arrow_down: |
source/agora/test/InvalidBlockSigByzantine.d | 96.29% <0.00%> (+0.14%) |
:arrow_up: |
source/agora/node/FullNode.d | 73.93% <0.00%> (+0.30%) |
:arrow_up: |
source/agora/consensus/state/Ledger.d | 90.90% <0.00%> (+0.51%) |
:arrow_up: |
source/agora/node/Validator.d | 91.70% <0.00%> (+0.51%) |
:arrow_up: |
source/agora/network/Manager.d | 80.58% <0.00%> (+0.64%) |
:arrow_up: |
... and 2 more |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5be86bb...ed697a7. Read the comment docs.
This reverts 5784d24
Updated to also conform to the behaviour https://github.com/bosagora/agora/commit/5784d240096667ad0195c7316fa3f5696e64c335 expects
Is the title still valid?
Yeah, I think it sill is. We are already checking if commitment is valid while validating the enrollment. There is no reason to use addPreImage()
and force another validation with far preimage guard.
Also at least one test needs an update as the failure looks related.
updated, should be good now.
Green
If a Validator stays unenrolled more than
ValidatorCycle
amount of blocks, it would never be able to reveal new preimages after that point.