feat: Calculate Top N based on active validators only

[p-offtermatt]

Description

Adjusts the top N and min power to only take into account active validators, not all bonded validators.

While reviewing, please double-check places where

• GetLastBondedValidators is called: Check that in these places we should include inactive validators
• GetLastActiveBondedValidators is called: Check that in these places we should exclude inactive validators
• ComputeMinPowerInTopN is called: Check that this correctly excludes the inactive validators

---

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 the change is state-machine breaking
• Confirmed this PR does not introduce changes requiring state migrations, OR migration code has been added to consumer and/or provider modules
• Targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• Provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• Followed the guidelines for building SDK 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
• If this PR is library API breaking, bump the go.mod version string of the repo, and follow through on a new major release

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 ! the type prefix if the change is state-machine breaking
• confirmed this PR does not introduce changes requiring state migrations, OR confirmed migration code has been added to consumer and/or provider modules
• 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

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Added scenarios for inactive validators that clarify their impact on top N validator metrics.
  • Introduced new test cases focusing on inactive validators in the governance and minting contexts.
  • Enhanced chain management processes to handle inactive validator scenarios more effectively.
  • Added a new boolean field to governance proposals indicating if inactive validators are permitted.

• Documentation

  • Updated documentation to include behavior details for inactive validators and their implications on governance.

• Refactor

  • Improved proposal structures to allow for handling of inactive validators flexibly.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The updates focus on refining the management of inactive validators within the chain's governance and validation processes. Key changes include the addition of new scenarios in documentation to clarify the implications of inactive validators, enhancements to testing frameworks for scenarios involving inactive validators, and new methods in the Keeper struct to manage inactive validator allowances effectively. These improvements aim to ensure a more robust validation mechanism and clearer governance options regarding inactive validators.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
docs/adrs/adr-017-allowing-inactive-validators.md	Added Scenario 6 detailing the treatment of inactive validators in top N computations and governance processes.
tests/e2e/main.go, tests/e2e/steps_inactive_vals.go	Introduced new test cases and a function for managing scenarios involving inactive validators and their interactions.
x/ccv/provider/keeper/keeper.go	Added methods to manage inactive validator allowances: SetAllowInactiveValidators, GetAllowInactiveValidators, and DeleteAllowInactiveValidators.
proto/interchain_security/ccv/provider/v1/provider.proto	Introduced allow_inactive_vals field in ConsumerAdditionProposal and ConsumerModificationProposal messages.
x/ccv/provider/types/legacy_proposal.go	Updated proposal creation functions to include allowInactiveVals parameter, enhancing proposal flexibility.
x/ccv/provider/keeper/legacy_proposal_test.go	Adjusted tests to account for the new allowInactiveValidators parameter in proposal instances.

Possibly Related Issues

• Inactive validators: Update docs #1914: This PR addresses the need for documentation updates regarding inactive validators being able to validate on consumer chains, aligning with changes made in this update.
• Allow validators that are not participating in consensus on the provider to validate consumer chains #1913: The changes implemented allow validators not participating in consensus on the provider to validate consumer chains, directly addressing this issue.
• Inactive validators: Allow consumer chains to disable non-provider-vals from validating #1916: The update provides consumer chains with the ability to manage which validators can validate, aligning with the request to allow options for restricting validators outside of the hub active set.
• ICS with inactive provider validators: Top N chains need an active set size cap or disable inactive provider validators #1951: This PR relates to the introduction of mechanisms for managing inactive provider validators, which is in line with the concerns raised about active set size caps in top N chains.

---

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>.
  • 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 generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @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 as 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.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (5)

docs/docs/adrs/adr-017-allowing-inactive-validators.md (1)

116-124: Clarify and correct the description in Scenario 6.

The description is clear but could benefit from minor grammatical corrections and additional clarity regarding the validator powers.

- * Start a provider chain with validator powers alice=300, bob=200, charlie=100 and 2 max provider consensus validators
+ * Start a provider chain with validator powers: alice=300, bob=200, charlie=100, and a maximum of 2 provider consensus validators.
- * Start a consumer chain with top N = 51%. 
+ * Start a consumer chain with top N = 51%.
- * Without inactive validators, this means both alice and bob have to validate. But since charlie is inactive, this means bob is *not* in the top N
+ * Without inactive validators, both alice and bob would have to validate. However, since charlie is inactive, bob is *not* in the top N.
- * Verify that alice is in the top N, but bob is not
+ * Verify that alice is in the top N, but bob is not.

Tools

Markdownlint

121-121: Expected: 0 or 2; Actual: 1
Trailing spaces

(MD009, no-trailing-spaces)

---

119-119: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD032, blanks-around-lists)

tests/e2e/steps_inactive_vals.go (1)

503-617: Ensure consistency and clarity in function implementation.

The function stepsInactiveValsWithTopN is well-structured but can benefit from minor improvements for consistency and clarity.

- * Start a provider chain with validator powers: alice=300, bob=200, charlie=100, and a maximum of 2 provider consensus validators.
+ * Start a provider chain with validator powers: alice=300, bob=200, carol=300, and a maximum of 2 provider consensus validators.
- * Start a consumer chain with top N = 51%.
+ * Start a consumer chain with top N = 51%.
- * Without inactive validators, both alice and bob would have to validate. However, since charlie is inactive, bob is *not* in the top N.
+ * Without inactive validators, both alice and bob would have to validate. However, since carol is inactive, bob is *not* in the top N.
- * Verify that alice is in the top N, but bob is not.
+ * Verify that alice is in the top N, but bob is not.

x/ccv/provider/keeper/relay.go (1)

291-296: Handle errors in computing minimum power.

The error handling for ComputeMinPowerInTopN is appropriate, but consider adding more context to the error logs to aid in debugging.

- k.Logger(ctx).Error("failed to compute min power to opt in for chain", "chain", chainID, "error", err)
+ k.Logger(ctx).Error("failed to compute min power to opt in for chain", "chainID", chainID, "topN", topN, "error", err)

x/ccv/provider/keeper/proposal.go (1)

295-299: Handle errors in computing minimum power.

The error handling for ComputeMinPowerInTopN is appropriate, but consider adding more context to the error logs to aid in debugging.

- return gen, nil, err
+ return gen, nil, errorsmod.Wrapf(err, "failed to compute min power in Top-N for chain %s", chainID)

x/ccv/consumer/keeper/keeper.go (1)

719-723: Improve error handling for max validators retrieval.

The addition of error handling for maxVals retrieval is appropriate, but consider adding more context to the error logs to aid in debugging.

- return nil, err
+ return nil, errorsmod.Wrapf(err, "failed to retrieve max validators")