fix validator set proposer priorities in light client provider #5307
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5307 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 60.83% 62.59% +1.75%
==========================================
Files 203 258 +55
Lines 20526 27171 +6645
==========================================
+ Hits 12488 17009 +4521
- Misses 6961 8686 +1725
- Partials 1077 1476 +399
|
|
Great, thanks! I'll give it a try when I'm able. |
|
This appears to give the correct light client results. However, I'm still seeing state sync consensus failures due to proposer problems, so I'm going to dig into it a bit further before approving this. |
|
Ok. Has the output from the script you wrote here: #5295 (comment) changed at all? |
|
Yes, I'm getting the right priorities, so it appears to fix the immediate problem. Not sure why I'm still seeing consensus failures. |
|
PS: this should have a changelog entry |
| @@ -966,6 +984,21 @@ func ValidatorSetFromProto(vp *tmproto.ValidatorSet) (*ValidatorSet, error) { | |||
| return vals, vals.ValidateBasic() | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // ValidatorSetFromExistingValidators takes an existing array of validators and rebuilds | |||
| // the exact same validator set that corresponds to it without changing the proposer priority or power | |||
| func ValidatorSetFromExistingValidators(valz []*Validator) (*ValidatorSet, error) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can't we combine this func with NewValidatorSet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in what way? have a check to see if the proposer priority is not nil for the validators? and if so then follow the logic of this function instead
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think my reason for having a separate function is that I wanted to show the clear distinction between the concept of making a validator set from new validators and making a validator set from existing validators. I can change this if you prefer going for simplicity
There was a problem hiding this comment.
have a check to see if the proposer priority is not nil for the validators? and if so then follow the logic of this function instead
yeah
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I can make the change in another PR
Description
Created
ValidatorSetFromExistingValidatorswhich restores a validator set (without incrementing priorities) from an array of validators.Closes: #5306
@erikgrinaker is it possible to see if this fixes your problem