Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

#

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Jump to bottom

Beefy: add runtime support for reporting fork voting #4523

Closed
3 tasks done
serban300 opened this issue May 20, 2024 · 1 comment
Closed
3 tasks done

Beefy: add runtime support for reporting fork voting #4523

serban300 opened this issue May 20, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
@serban300
Labels
T15-bridges This PR/Issue is related to bridges.

Comments

@serban300
Copy link
Contributor

serban300 commented May 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Creating this issue to track the progress of the task

So far we have:

Still needs to be done:
@serban300 serban300 added the T15-bridges This PR/Issue is related to bridges. label May 20, 2024
@serban300 serban300 self-assigned this May 20, 2024
@serban300 serban300 mentioned this issue May 20, 2024
Merged
@acatangiu acatangiu moved this to In Progress in Bridges + XCM May 20, 2024
programskillforverification pushed a commit to programskillforverification/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Jul 3, 2024
@serban300 @acatangiu
[BEEFY] Add runtime support for reporting fork voting (paritytech#4522)
b6f1823 
Related to paritytech#4523

Extracting part of paritytech#1903
(credits to @Lederstrumpf for the high-level strategy), but also
introducing significant adjustments both to the approach and to the
code. The main adjustment is the fact that the `ForkVotingProof` accepts
only one vote, compared to the original version which accepted a
`vec![]`. With this approach more calls are needed in order to report
multiple equivocated votes on the same commit, but it simplifies a lot
the checking logic. We can add support for reporting multiple signatures
at once in the future.

There are 2 things that are missing in order to consider this issue
done, but I would propose to do them in a separate PR since this one is
already pretty big:
- benchmarks/computing a weight for the new extrinsic (this wasn't
present in paritytech#1903 either)
- exposing an API for generating the ancestry proof. I'm not sure if we
should do this in the Mmr pallet or in the Beefy pallet

Co-authored-by: Robert Hambrock <roberthambrock@gmail.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
TomaszWaszczyk pushed a commit to TomaszWaszczyk/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Jul 7, 2024
@serban300 @acatangiu @TomaszWaszczyk
[BEEFY] Add runtime support for reporting fork voting (paritytech#4522)
e5d36e0 
Related to paritytech#4523

Extracting part of paritytech#1903
(credits to @Lederstrumpf for the high-level strategy), but also
introducing significant adjustments both to the approach and to the
code. The main adjustment is the fact that the `ForkVotingProof` accepts
only one vote, compared to the original version which accepted a
`vec![]`. With this approach more calls are needed in order to report
multiple equivocated votes on the same commit, but it simplifies a lot
the checking logic. We can add support for reporting multiple signatures
at once in the future.

There are 2 things that are missing in order to consider this issue
done, but I would propose to do them in a separate PR since this one is
already pretty big:
- benchmarks/computing a weight for the new extrinsic (this wasn't
present in paritytech#1903 either)
- exposing an API for generating the ancestry proof. I'm not sure if we
should do this in the Mmr pallet or in the Beefy pallet

Co-authored-by: Robert Hambrock <roberthambrock@gmail.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
@serban300 serban300 mentioned this issue Jul 10, 2024
Merged
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 23, 2024
@serban300
Beefy equivocation: add runtime API methods (#4993)
216e8fa 
Related to #4523

Add runtime API methods for:
- generating the ancestry proof
- submiting a fork voting report
- submitting a future voting report
@serban300 serban300 mentioned this issue Jul 30, 2024
Merged
TarekkMA pushed a commit to moonbeam-foundation/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2024
@serban300 @acatangiu @TarekkMA
[BEEFY] Add runtime support for reporting fork voting (paritytech#4522)
51498b4 
Related to paritytech#4523

Extracting part of paritytech#1903
(credits to @Lederstrumpf for the high-level strategy), but also
introducing significant adjustments both to the approach and to the
code. The main adjustment is the fact that the `ForkVotingProof` accepts
only one vote, compared to the original version which accepted a
`vec![]`. With this approach more calls are needed in order to report
multiple equivocated votes on the same commit, but it simplifies a lot
the checking logic. We can add support for reporting multiple signatures
at once in the future.

There are 2 things that are missing in order to consider this issue
done, but I would propose to do them in a separate PR since this one is
already pretty big:
- benchmarks/computing a weight for the new extrinsic (this wasn't
present in paritytech#1903 either)
- exposing an API for generating the ancestry proof. I'm not sure if we
should do this in the Mmr pallet or in the Beefy pallet

Co-authored-by: Robert Hambrock <roberthambrock@gmail.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
TarekkMA pushed a commit to moonbeam-foundation/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2024
@serban300 @TarekkMA
Beefy equivocation: add runtime API methods (paritytech#4993)
a31ffcf 
Related to paritytech#4523

Add runtime API methods for:
- generating the ancestry proof
- submiting a fork voting report
- submitting a future voting report
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 14, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Beefy: add benchmarks for report_fork_voting() (#5188)
d29ebfb 
Related to #4523 

This PR adds benchmarks for `report_fork_voting()`.

**Important: Even though the benchmarks are now available, we still use
`Weight::MAX`. That's because I realized while working on this PR that
there's still one missing piece. We should also check that the ancestry
proof is optimal. I plan to do this in a future PR, hopefully the last
one related to #4523.**

---------

Co-authored-by: Branislav Kontur <bkontur@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 14, 2024
@serban300 @bkontur
Beefy: add benchmarks for report_fork_voting() (#5188)
81d8f0c 
Related to #4523 

This PR adds benchmarks for `report_fork_voting()`.

**Important: Even though the benchmarks are now available, we still use
`Weight::MAX`. That's because I realized while working on this PR that
there's still one missing piece. We should also check that the ancestry
proof is optimal. I plan to do this in a future PR, hopefully the last
one related to #4523.**

---------

Co-authored-by: Branislav Kontur <bkontur@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
@serban300 serban300 mentioned this issue Aug 16, 2024
Closed
@serban300 serban300 mentioned this issue Dec 3, 2024
Closed
@serban300 serban300 mentioned this issue Dec 12, 2024
Merged
sfffaaa pushed a commit to peaqnetwork/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Dec 27, 2024
@serban300 @acatangiu
[BEEFY] Add runtime support for reporting fork voting (paritytech#4522)
9709d01 
Related to paritytech#4523

Extracting part of paritytech#1903
(credits to @Lederstrumpf for the high-level strategy), but also
introducing significant adjustments both to the approach and to the
code. The main adjustment is the fact that the `ForkVotingProof` accepts
only one vote, compared to the original version which accepted a
`vec![]`. With this approach more calls are needed in order to report
multiple equivocated votes on the same commit, but it simplifies a lot
the checking logic. We can add support for reporting multiple signatures
at once in the future.

There are 2 things that are missing in order to consider this issue
done, but I would propose to do them in a separate PR since this one is
already pretty big:
- benchmarks/computing a weight for the new extrinsic (this wasn't
present in paritytech#1903 either)
- exposing an API for generating the ancestry proof. I'm not sure if we
should do this in the Mmr pallet or in the Beefy pallet

Co-authored-by: Robert Hambrock <roberthambrock@gmail.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 22, 2025
@serban300
Enable BEEFY report_fork_voting() (#6856)
1bdb817 
Related to #4523

Follow-up for: #5188

Reopening #6732 as a new
PR

---------

Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
@serban300
Copy link
Contributor Author

All the sub-items have been addressed. Closing the issue

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Progress to Done in Bridges + XCM Jan 22, 2025
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Assignees

@serban300 serban300

Labels
T15-bridges This PR/Issue is related to bridges.
Projects
Bridges + XCM
Status: Done
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@serban300