fix(metrics): num of validators that didn't sign is always 0

[lklimek]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

missing validators Prometheus metric is always 0

What was done?

Fix to correctly calculate missing validators.

How Has This Been Tested?

Started local devnet to monitor this parameter

Breaking Changes

None

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation

For repository code-owners and collaborators only

• I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Enhanced logic for calculating and recording metrics related to validators and their voting power, improving clarity and accuracy.
  • Introduced error handling for invalid validators during metric calculations.

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved handling of missing validators and their voting power, ensuring accurate metric reporting.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes enhance the RecordMetrics method within the ApplyCommitAction class by improving the clarity of metric calculations related to validators and their voting power. Local variables are introduced to store total counts, and mechanisms for calculating missing validators and their voting power are added. Additionally, error logging for invalid precommits is implemented, contributing to better error handling within the metric calculations.

Changes

Files	Change Summary
internal/consensus/state_apply_commit.go	Improved the RecordMetrics method to use local variables for clarity, added calculations for missing validators and their voting power, and included error logging for invalid precommits.

Poem

In the land of code where metrics play,
A rabbit hops and cheers today!
With clearer counts and errors caught,
The validators' strength is now well thought.
Hooray for changes, let’s all rejoice,
For in this logic, we find our voice! 🐇✨

---

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?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[lklimek]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)

internal/consensus/state_apply_commit.go (1)

130-135: Improve error logging when validator is invalid

In the error log for an invalid validator, the val variable is nil, which might not provide useful information. Consider removing val from the log or adding more relevant context to assist in debugging.

Apply this diff to adjust the log statement:

	c.logger.Error("precommit received from invalid validator",
-		"val", val,
		"vote", vote,
		"height", vote.Height,
		"round", vote.Round)

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 005af92 and 729ea1d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• internal/consensus/state_apply_commit.go (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

internal/consensus/state_apply_commit.go (2)

111-115: Correctly recording total validators and their voting power

The code accurately calculates and sets the metrics for the total number of validators and their total voting power.

---

125-136: Accurate computation of missing validators and their voting power

The loop correctly processes the precommits to compute the number and total voting power of validators who did not sign, updating the metrics accordingly.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[shumkov]

👍