[ETCM-355] Send fork id to peers#1030
Merged
lukasz-golebiewski merged 13 commits intodevelopfrom Jul 9, 2021
Merged
Conversation
lukasz-golebiewski
force-pushed
the
feature/etcm-355/eth64
branch
from
ad1ac51 to
6f2b08e
Compare
dzajkowski
reviewed
Jun 30, 2021
| Capability.negotiate(hello.capabilities.toList, handshakerConfiguration.capabilities) match { | ||
| Capability.negotiate(hello.capabilities.toList, handshakerConfiguration.blockchainConfig.capabilities) match { | ||
| case Some(ProtocolVersions.ETC64) => EtcNodeStatus64ExchangeState(handshakerConfiguration) | ||
| case Some(ProtocolVersions.ETH63) => EtcNodeStatus63ExchangeState(handshakerConfiguration) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
request: do you mind changing this to Eth? I missed it and it's confusing this way.
Contributor
|
overall looks good to me. question: would you be able to deploy to staging to see how it behaves? I guess running it locally against ETC mainnet would also be a good idea. |
lukasz-golebiewski
force-pushed
the
feature/etcm-355/eth64
branch
from
6f2b08e to
ac6bd58
Compare
leo-bogastry
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2021
Contributor
leo-bogastry
left a comment
leo-bogastry
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thinks it's looking good
dzajkowski
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2021
Contributor
Author
|
Waiting before merging for #1029 |
lukasz-golebiewski
force-pushed
the
feature/etcm-355/eth64
branch
6 times, most recently
from
f877897 to
9f6194a
Compare
AurelienRichez
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2021
lukasz-golebiewski
force-pushed
the
feature/etcm-355/eth64
branch
3 times, most recently
from
199ece7 to
43c8eef
Compare
lukasz-golebiewski
requested review from
AurelienRichez,
dzajkowski and
leo-bogastry
This also fixes a bug in NewBlock message creation, where only protocol version was taken into account
lukasz-golebiewski
force-pushed
the
feature/etcm-355/eth64
branch
from
4438dfb to
b0ec96e
Compare
dzajkowski
reviewed
Jul 9, 2021
| val remoteStatus = peers(peer.id).peerInfo.remoteStatus | ||
|
|
||
| val message: MessageSerializable = remoteStatus.protocolFamily match { | ||
| case ETH => blockToBroadcast.as63 |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would be so cool to have this fail if a new block type is introduced. just a thought, no great ideas.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure what you mean here
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thinking out loud:
private def broadcastNewBlock(blockToBroadcast: BlockToBroadcast, peers: Map[PeerId, PeerWithInfo]): Unit =
obtainRandomPeerSubset(peers.values.map(_.peer).toSet).foreach { peer =>
val remoteStatus = peers(peer.id).peerInfo.remoteStatus
val message: MessageSerializable = {
val capOpt = Capabilities.of(remoteStatus.protocolFamily, remoteStatus.protocolVersion)
capOpt match {
case Capabilities.Eth63Capability => blockToBroadcast.as63
case Capabilities.Eth64Capability => blockToBroadcast.as63
case Capabilities.Etc64Capability => blockToBroadcast.as64
case None => throw new RuntimeException("Unknown capability, cannot broadcast block")
}
}
...
def of(pf: ProtocolFamily, v: Int): Option[Capability] =
(pf, v) match {
case (ProtocolFamily.ETH, 63) => Some(Eth63Capability)
case (ProtocolFamily.ETH, 64) => Some(Eth64Capability)
case (ProtocolFamily.ETC, 64) => Some(Etc64Capability)
case _ => None
}and an ADT out of the capabilities?
dzajkowski
reviewed
Jul 9, 2021
| case Some(ProtocolVersions.ETH64) => { | ||
| case Some(ProtocolVersions.ETH64) => | ||
| log.debug("Negotiated protocol version with client {} is eth/64", hello.clientId) | ||
| EthNodeStatus64ExchangeState(handshakerConfiguration) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could you also fix the 'orElse' clause that I introduced (orElse(WireDecoder))
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like to do this in a follow up PR, this one has become quite old and heavy
This was referenced Jul 9, 2021
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
First part of https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2364. Extends the ETH64 protocol Status by a fork id field and broadcasts it to peers during handshake
Does not yet contain peer fork id validation