Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 9, 2024. It is now read-only.

fix(miner): use unixnano for block time #1494

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix(miner): use unixnano for block time #1494

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

tuxcanfly
Copy link

@tuxcanfly tuxcanfly commented Feb 19, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot

This PR updates the payload to use nano timestamp to allow sub-second block time. Fixes rollkit/rollkit#1529

Thanks @tzdybal

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Updated block time precision in mining operations to use nanoseconds.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 19, 2024 •
edited

Walkthrough

The change in the miner.go file addresses a critical issue by ensuring that the payloadArgs within the submitPayloadForBuilding method now utilize nanoseconds instead of seconds. This adjustment is aimed at preventing the creation of multiple blocks with identical Unix timestamps, which was causing chain crashes.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
cosmos/runtime/miner/miner.go Updated submitPayloadForBuilding to use nanoseconds in payloadArgs

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Bug: Rollkit creates 2 blocks with identical Unix timestamps (#1529) ✅
Root Issue: "invalid timestamp, parent 1707252473 given 1707252473" error (#1529) ✅
Expected Result: Rollkit should not generate 2 blocks with the same Unix timestamp (#1529) ✅

Poem

🐇💻 In the land of code and time, a rabbit hopped, fixing a crime.
🕒🐾 With a twitch and a leap, no more identical stamps in the heap.
🌟📦 Blocks now unique, in nanoseconds they speak.
🚀✨ No more crashes, on this chain path, it dashes.
🎉🐰 A celebration, for a bug's cessation, in the cosmos narration.

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
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-tests for this file.
  • 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 tests 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 from git and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

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 a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

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

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
  • 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/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot reviewed Feb 19, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits Files that changed from the base of the PR and between a5b91d0 and 792726b.
Files selected for processing (1)
  • cosmos/runtime/miner/miner.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 2
cosmos/runtime/miner/miner.go (2)
  • 105-105: The change to use nanosecond precision for block timestamps by calling UnixNano() instead of Unix() is a direct and effective solution to the problem of blocks having identical Unix timestamps. This adjustment allows for sub-second block times, which should prevent the creation of blocks with identical timestamps and address the chain crash issue. The logic appears correct and aligns with the PR's objectives. However, it's important to ensure that all downstream systems and components that interact with block timestamps can handle the increased precision without issues.
  • 105-105: Given the significant change in timestamp precision, it's recommended to verify the compatibility of nanosecond precision timestamps with all parts of the system that interact with block timestamps. This includes checking data storage, timestamp processing logic, and any external systems that might rely on the timestamp format. Additionally, consider conducting performance testing to ensure that the increased precision does not introduce any unexpected overhead or issues, especially in high-throughput scenarios.

@gupadhyaya gupadhyaya requested review from itsdevbear and gupadhyaya and removed request for itsdevbear February 22, 2024 14:26
@gupadhyaya gupadhyaya changed the base branch from main to rollkit-main February 22, 2024 20:51
@gupadhyaya gupadhyaya changed the base branch from rollkit-main to main February 22, 2024 20:55
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai left review comments

@gupadhyaya gupadhyaya Awaiting requested review from gupadhyaya

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

bug: Rollkit attempts to create 2 blocks with identical Unix timestamps
1 participant
@tuxcanfly