-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Load Testing] gherkin load test follow-up #521
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Redouane Lakrache <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Bryan White <[email protected]>
…roof-integration * pokt/feat/proof-validation: chore: Add godoc comments chore: Update keeper query clients in-code documentation chore: Address review change requests [PubKeyClient] Implement PubKeyClient for on/off-chain usage (#413)
… test/proof-integration
…roof-integration * pokt/feat/proof-validation: fix: test error msg assertion
(cherry picked from commit eab6d984e65a9a07014c9a9839e7b55d125147a1)
Co-authored-by: Daniel Olshansky <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: h5law <[email protected]>
* pokt/main: A couple comment improvements Update google drive video to youtube video
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is 🔥
Just a few more small suggestions but otherwise, this is good to go IMO. 🙌
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have a few blocking comments that need to be resolved but have to say that the comments are absolute 🔥.
Given the necessary complexity of this, it's the perfect balance!
pkg/relayer/session/session.go
Outdated
// waiting for block to be committed. | ||
if len(lateSessions) > 0 { | ||
sessionsToClaimsPublishCh <- lateSessions | ||
// If there are any late sessions to be claimed, emit them first. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't understand this. I assumed late sessions are too late and shouldn't be claimed, yet here we are trying to claim them.
This makes me question the rest of the business logic in this function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IsWithinGracePeriod
is checking for sessions to claim with <=
operator. Which means that it would catch sessions that were supposed to be claimed in previous block heights too.
These late sessions might have their create claim window closed and are no longer eligible to be claimed, but that's not always the case.
Once claim window closing is implemented, they will be filtered out downstream at the appropriate step.
Will put this explanation as a comment but not at this specific line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Preemptively approving; two last questions/suggustions but otherwise this LGTM! 💪
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ import ( | |||
// attempting to retrieve the supplier's on-chain record. | |||
// This is useful for testing and development purposes, where the supplier | |||
// may not be staked before the relay miner starts. | |||
const supplierStakeWaitTime = 2 | |||
const supplierStakeWaitTime = 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did you intend to leave this at 1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
☝️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, as long as our block time is 2s
, other wise the RelayMiner
will react too late to its Supplier
being freshly staked, missing by the way some RelayRequests
that'll fire ASAP.
@red-0ne maybe run |
s.currentProofCount, | ||
"unexpected claims and proofs count", | ||
) | ||
// TODO_TECHDEBT: The current counting mechanism for the expected claims and proofs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How much of a concern is this?
Can't tell if it's "hard to do" or a major issue?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we don't have full control from within the test over how Gateways
distribute their relays or info about which Supplier
served a given request.
Although it's possible to do it with some modifications on the AppGateServer
, results and failed proofs would anyway be visible on grafana, so I don't believe it to be a big concern.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Left a few last-minute questions. Nothing blocking. Love the cleanup into goFoo
functions.
Merge it in!
The CI will now also run the e2e tests on devnet, which increases the time it takes to complete all CI checks. If you just created a pull request, you might need to push another commit to produce a container image DevNet can utilize to spin up infrastructure. You can use |
@red-0ne Everything is 🟢 |
Summary
Issue
Type of change
Select one or more:
Testing
Documentation changes (only if making doc changes)
make docusaurus_start
; only needed if you make doc changesLocal Testing (only if making code changes)
make go_develop_and_test
make test_e2e
PR Testing (only if making code changes)
devnet-test-e2e
label to the PR.make trigger_ci
if you want to re-trigger tests without any code changesSanity Checklist