Tracking metablocks' rounds in the Consensus contract.

[pgev]

Add in the Consensus contract, the following mappings named metablockchains and metablockTips:

  mapping(bytes20 /* chain id */ => mapping(uint256 => MetaBlock)) public metablockchains;
  mapping(bytes20 /* chain id */ => uint256 /* metablock number */) public metablockTips;

Metablock's struct:

    struct Metablock {
        bytes32 metablockHash;
        uint256 roundBlockNumber;
        MetablockRound round;
    }

Metablock's round:

  enum MetablockRound {
        Undefined,
        Precommitted,
        CommitteeFormed,
        CommitteeDecided,
        Committed,            
    }

The mapping metablockchains is updated in the following function calls:

• precommitMetablock
• formCommittee
• registerCommitteeDecision
• commitMetablock

To be able to update metablockchains and metablockTips mappings one of the below proposals should be picked:

Adding the following two mappings to Consensus:

  - mapping(address /* core */ => bytes20 /* chain id */) public cores;
  - mapping(address /* committee */ => bytes20 /* chain id */) public committees;

or,

Consensus is passing chainId into core and committee on creation. Core::precommitMetablockand Committee::registerCommitteeDecision specify the chainId on calling back.

Optional (optimization):

• Keep only latest n number of recent blocks, prune the older data.

[benjaminbollen]

Great ticket thx

• mind capitalisation “metablockchains”
• use “metachainId” bytes32 cc @gulshanvasnani on his progress changing this

Thx!

[pgev]

@benjaminbollen

• Do you mean to have "metablockChains" or "metablockchains"?
• I would proceed with chainId and depending which PR will be merged first update the second one accordingly.

[benjaminbollen]

Do you mean to have "metablockChains" or "metablockchains"?

I think I would write "metablockchain" as one word, bc I write "blockchain" as one word too. So capitalisation is "metablockchains"

[pgev]

https://github.com/mosaicdao/mosaic-1/pull/103