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.

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

feat: adding consensus manager to main node function #496

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 21, 2024

Conversation

lev-starkware
Copy link
Contributor

@lev-starkware lev-starkware commented Aug 18, 2024

commit-id:c08d1931


This change is Reviewable

Copy link

Benchmark movements:
tree_computation_flow performance improved 😺
tree_computation_flow time: [64.745 ms 64.837 ms 64.941 ms]
change: [-5.7077% -4.2095% -2.8776%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
Performance has improved.
Found 7 outliers among 100 measurements (7.00%)
6 (6.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

Copy link

Benchmark movements:
tree_computation_flow performance improved 😺
tree_computation_flow time: [64.516 ms 64.588 ms 64.665 ms]
change: [-10.491% -6.8515% -3.5988%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
Performance has improved.
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
1 (1.00%) low severe
1 (1.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

@lev-starkware lev-starkware force-pushed the pr/lev-starkware/lev_dev/c08d1931 branch from 04153fb to 7aea502 Compare August 19, 2024 06:12
Copy link

Benchmark movements:
tree_computation_flow performance improved 😺
tree_computation_flow time: [65.253 ms 65.323 ms 65.405 ms]
change: [-9.9447% -6.2713% -2.9678%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
Performance has improved.
Found 6 outliers among 100 measurements (6.00%)
4 (4.00%) high mild
2 (2.00%) high severe

Copy link

Benchmark movements:
tree_computation_flow performance improved 😺
tree_computation_flow time: [65.236 ms 65.322 ms 65.423 ms]
change: [-10.524% -6.1745% -2.5141%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
Performance has improved.
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
1 (1.00%) high mild
3 (3.00%) high severe

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 19, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 64.28571% with 25 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.77%. Comparing base (7ba1089) to head (48cfcf8).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
crates/consensus_manager/src/consensus_manager.rs 21.42% 11 Missing ⚠️
crates/mempool_node/src/servers.rs 55.00% 9 Missing ⚠️
crates/mempool_node/src/communication.rs 86.20% 4 Missing ⚠️
crates/mempool_node/src/components.rs 83.33% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #496      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   76.79%   76.77%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         348      349       +1     
  Lines       36340    36387      +47     
  Branches    36340    36387      +47     
==========================================
+ Hits        27906    27936      +30     
- Misses       6140     6153      +13     
- Partials     2294     2298       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@uriel-starkware uriel-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:lgtm:

Reviewable status: 0 of 8 files reviewed, all discussions resolved

Copy link
Contributor

@uriel-starkware uriel-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewed 8 of 8 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @lev-starkware)

Copy link
Contributor

@matan-starkware matan-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewed 8 of 8 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @lev-starkware)


crates/mempool_node/src/communication.rs line 82 at r1 (raw file):

pub struct MempoolNodeClients {
    batcher_client: Option<SharedBatcherClient>,
    consensus_manager_client: Option<SharedConsensusManagerClient>,

Why does the mempool hold a consensus client? If there is a consensus client I need to understand what we expect the server to supply.

Code quote:

    consensus_manager_client: Option<SharedConsensusManagerClient

Copy link
Contributor Author

@lev-starkware lev-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @matan-starkware)


crates/mempool_node/src/communication.rs line 82 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

Why does the mempool hold a consensus client? If there is a consensus client I need to understand what we expect the server to supply.

It's not a mempool. This structure holds all clients for the mempool node to use in creating components in the latter stage.
In any case, when we talked, you said that Sync would need to communicate with the Consensus so it, probably, would receive this client (in the future). The client itself is already defined in consensus_manager_types/communication.rs. And currently, it's only some template.

Copy link
Contributor

@matan-starkware matan-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @lev-starkware)


crates/mempool_node/src/communication.rs line 82 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, lev-starkware wrote…

It's not a mempool. This structure holds all clients for the mempool node to use in creating components in the latter stage.
In any case, when we talked, you said that Sync would need to communicate with the Consensus so it, probably, would receive this client (in the future). The client itself is already defined in consensus_manager_types/communication.rs. And currently, it's only some template.

Yes sync will be a client, I just didn't think of that as coming from the mempool component.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@lev-starkware lev-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewed 8 of 8 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @lev-starkware)

@lev-starkware lev-starkware force-pushed the pr/lev-starkware/lev_dev/c08d1931 branch from 7aea502 to 48cfcf8 Compare August 21, 2024 06:59
Copy link
Contributor Author

@lev-starkware lev-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @lev-starkware)

@lev-starkware lev-starkware merged commit a13f717 into main Aug 21, 2024
72 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 22, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants