ledger: don't sample own block #4
Conversation
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis change removes the self-voting mechanism from the ledger's query process. Previously, the system would include its own vote when collecting votes for finalization, but this behavior has been removed to prevent self-sampling. Sequence diagram for the ledger query processsequenceDiagram
participant Ledger
participant Finalizer
participant Client
participant Block
Ledger->>Finalizer: Get preferred vote
Finalizer-->>Ledger: Return preferred vote
Ledger->>Client: Get client ID
Client-->>Ledger: Return client ID
Ledger->>Ledger: Filter invalid votes
Ledger->>Finalizer: Tick with calculated tallies
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
Seems you are using me but didn't get OPENAI_API_KEY seted in Variables/Secrets for this repo. you could follow readme for more information |
|
Thanks @2lambda123 for opening this PR! For COLLABORATOR only :
|
|
Processing PR updates... |
![gitginie[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/712912?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@2lambda123
Thank you for your contribution to this repository! We appreciate your effort in opening pull request.
Happy coding!
|
Unable to locate .performanceTestingBot config file |
Their most recently public accepted PR is: 2lambda123/weld-core#19 |
labels-and-badges
bot
added
NO JIRA
|
PR Details of @2lambda123 in perlin-network-wavelet :
|
PR summaryThis Pull Request modifies the SuggestionConsider adding a test case to verify that the ledger no longer includes its own block in the vote sampling process. This will help ensure that the change behaves as expected and does not introduce any unintended side effects. Disclaimer: This comment was entirely generated using AI. Be aware that the information provided may be incorrect. Current plan usage: 2.71% Have feedback or need help? |
|
Description has been updated! |
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@korbit-ai[bot] has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 27 minutes and 57 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on the Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
Failed to generate code suggestions for PR |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@2lambda123
Thank you for your contribution to this repository! We appreciate your effort in closing pull request.
Happy coding!
![codereviewbot-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/309638?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| } | ||
|
|
||
| votes = append(votes, &finalizationVote{voter: l.client.ID(), block: preferred}) | ||
|
|
||
| l.filterInvalidVotes(current, votes) | ||
| l.finalizer.Tick(calculateTallies(l.accounts, votes)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The calculateTallies function is called within the Tick method without any performance considerations documented or apparent from this context. If calculateTallies is computationally intensive, this could introduce a significant performance bottleneck, especially under conditions where many votes need to be processed. Recommendation: Consider optimizing calculateTallies or ensure it handles large datasets efficiently. Additionally, profiling this part of the code under realistic loads could provide insights into potential performance improvements.
| l.filterInvalidVotes(current, votes) | ||
| l.finalizer.Tick(calculateTallies(l.accounts, votes)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a lack of error handling for the filterInvalidVotes and calculateTallies functions. In a blockchain or distributed ledger context, ensuring the integrity and reliability of the consensus process is critical. Any errors during these operations could lead to incorrect state transitions or consensus failures. Recommendation: Implement error handling for these functions. This could involve returning errors from these functions and handling them appropriately, or using panic-recovery patterns to manage unexpected issues without crashing the node.
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @2lambda123 - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:
Overall Comments:
- Please provide a detailed description of why this change is necessary. Removing self-votes from the consensus mechanism is a significant change that needs proper justification and documentation.
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟢 General issues: all looks good
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've completed my review and didn't find any issues.
Files scanned
| File Path | Reviewed |
|---|---|
| ledger.go | ✅ |
Explore our documentation to understand the languages and file types we support and the files we ignore.
Need a new review? Comment
/korbit-reviewon this PR and I'll review your latest changes.Korbit Guide: Usage and Customization
Interacting with Korbit
- You can manually ask Korbit to review your PR using the
/korbit-reviewcommand in a comment at the root of your PR.- You can ask Korbit to generate a new PR description using the
/korbit-generate-pr-descriptioncommand in any comment on your PR.- Too many Korbit comments? I can resolve all my comment threads if you use the
/korbit-resolvecommand in any comment on your PR.- Chat with Korbit on issues we post by tagging @korbit-ai in your reply.
- Help train Korbit to improve your reviews by giving a 👍 or 👎 on the comments Korbit posts.
Customizing Korbit
- Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.
- Customize Korbit for your organization through the Korbit Console.
Current Korbit Configuration
General Settings
Setting Value Review Schedule Automatic excluding drafts Max Issue Count 10 Automatic PR Descriptions ✅ Issue Categories
Category Enabled Naming ✅ Database Operations ✅ Documentation ✅ Logging ✅ Error Handling ✅ Systems and Environment ✅ Objects and Data Structures ✅ Readability and Maintainability ✅ Asynchronous Processing ✅ Design Patterns ✅ Third-Party Libraries ✅ Performance ✅ Security ✅ Functionality ✅ Feedback and Support
|
There was an issue running the performance test |
Description
The code changes in this pull request involve removing the inclusion of the node's own vote from the list of votes considered in the ledger. Here are the summarized changes:
These changes likely aim to adjust the voting mechanism to exclude self-voting from the ledger calculations or to streamline the code by removing unnecessary logic around the node's own vote.
Description by Korbit AI
What change is being made?
Remove the addition of the ledger's own vote in the block sampling process within the
queryfunction ofledger.go.Why are these changes being made?
The change is made to prevent the ledger from sampling its own block, which could skew vote results and lead to unintended finalization outcomes. Removing the ledger's attempt to vote for its own block improves the integrity and fairness of the voting process by ensuring all votes are externally derived rather than self-referential.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation