Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fix: add block height to prepareProposal context #14467

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

fix: add block height to prepareProposal context #14467

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

facundomedica
Copy link
Member

@facundomedica facundomedica commented Jan 3, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Description

Ref: #14446
Audit: #13951

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

@facundomedica
Copy link
Member Author

facundomedica commented Jan 3, 2023 •
edited
Loading 

    --- FAIL: TestIntegrationTestSuite/TestQueryABCIHeight (7.02s)
        --- FAIL: TestIntegrationTestSuite/TestQueryABCIHeight/non_zero_request_height (4.01s)
            rpc_test.go:113: 
                	Error Trace:	/home/runner/work/cosmos-sdk/cosmos-sdk/client/rpc/rpc_test.go:113
                	            				/home/runner/work/cosmos-sdk/cosmos-sdk/client/rpc/suite.go:91
                	Error:      	Received unexpected error:
                	            	rpc error: code = Unknown desc = proof is unexpectedly empty; ensure height has not been pruned: invalid request
                	Test:       	TestIntegrationTestSuite/TestQueryABCIHeight/non_zero_request_height

EDIT: This seems to be another flaky test

@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Jan 3, 2023

[Cosmos SDK] Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

ttl33
ttl33 reviewed Jan 3, 2023
View reviewed changes
baseapp/abci.go
if app.prepareProposal == nil {
panic("PrepareProposal method not set")
}

ctx := app.getContextForTx(runTxPrepareProposal, []byte{}).
WithBlockHeight(req.Height).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems to be set to a valid value after the first PrepareProposal call. Do you know why this might be happening?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Late response, but this was happening because you would be seeing the previous block height instead of the current. So it gave the illusion of being a valid value

baseapp/abci.go
@@ -289,13 +293,11 @@ func (app *BaseApp) ProcessProposal(req abci.RequestProcessProposal) (resp abci.
panic("app.ProcessProposal is not set")
}

ctx := app.processProposalState.ctx.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

here and below: for my own understanding, why do we stop populating VoteInfo, Proposer and ConsensusParam?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Those are being set inside getContextForTx, just a little cleanup to reuse code (although not really happy about it, as the function is intended to create a context for a single tx afaik; might roll this back for readability).

alexanderbez
alexanderbez reviewed Jan 3, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@alexanderbez alexanderbez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking good so far!

meetrick
meetrick reviewed Jan 4, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@meetrick meetrick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

alexanderbez
alexanderbez reviewed Jan 4, 2023
View reviewed changes
baseapp/abci.go
Height: req.Height,
ProposerAddress: req.ProposerAddress,
}
app.setState(runTxModeDeliver, initHeader)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's update setState to also accept runTxPrepareProposal for deliver state.

i.e. case runTxModeDeliver, runTxPrepareProposal: ...

@facundomedica
Copy link
Member Author

Closing in favor of #14505

@julienrbrt julienrbrt deleted the facu/fix-prepare-proposal branch February 2, 2023 18:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@alexanderbez alexanderbez alexanderbez left review comments

@meetrick meetrick meetrick left review comments

@ttl33 ttl33 ttl33 left review comments

@aaronc aaronc Awaiting requested review from aaronc aaronc is a code owner

@tac0turtle tac0turtle Awaiting requested review from tac0turtle

@testinginprod testinginprod Awaiting requested review from testinginprod testinginprod will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review testinginprod is a code owner

@kocubinski kocubinski Awaiting requested review from kocubinski kocubinski will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review kocubinski is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@facundomedica @alexanderbez @meetrick @ttl33