Skip to content

hotfix: resolve ambiguity in signature result #1763

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
Merged
MauroToscano merged 4 commits into from
Feb 10, 2025
Merged

hotfix: resolve ambiguity in signature result #1763

MauroToscano merged 4 commits into from
Feb 10, 2025

Conversation

@Oppen
Copy link
Contributor

@Oppen Oppen commented Jan 20, 2025

ProcessOperatorSignedTaskResponseV2 would set *reply to 0 in all
non-timeout scenarios, regardless of errors. Use the done channel to
report actual result and use that instead.

Type of change

  • Bug fix

Checklist

  • “Hotfix” to testnet, everything else to staging
  • Linked to Github Issue
  • This change depends on code or research by an external entity
    • Acknowledgements were updated to give credit
  • Unit tests added
  • This change requires new documentation.
    • Documentation has been added/updated.
  • This change is an Optimization
    • Benchmarks added/run
  • Has a known issue
  • If your PR changes the Operator compatibility (Ex: Upgrade prover versions)
    • This PR adds compatibility for operator for both versions and do not change batcher/docs/examples
    • This PR updates batcher and docs/examples to the newer version. This requires the operator are already updated to be compatible

Testing

Signature errors should now log the correct value. The error is still lost tho.

@Oppen
hotfix: resolve ambiguity in signature result
e6eeeb8 
`ProcessOperatorSignedTaskResponseV2` would set `*reply` to `0` in all
non-timeout scenarios, regardless of errors. Use the `done` channel to
report actual result and use that instead.
uri-99
uri-99 suggested changes Jan 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@uri-99 uri-99 left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This PR is fully replaced with #1764 .
As this pr is not urgent, i suggest closing this PR and merging #1764 instead.

@JuArce
Copy link
Collaborator

JuArce commented Jan 22, 2025

Closed in favor of #1764

@JuArce JuArce closed this Jan 22, 2025
@JuArce JuArce deleted the hotfix/reply_channel branch January 22, 2025 20:19
@JuArce JuArce restored the hotfix/reply_channel branch January 22, 2025 23:10
@JuArce JuArce reopened this Jan 22, 2025
@uri-99
Copy link
Contributor

uri-99 commented Jan 27, 2025

@JuArce why was this PR reopened?

@MauroToscano MauroToscano merged commit 6f36329 into testnet Feb 10, 2025
3 checks passed
@MauroToscano MauroToscano deleted the hotfix/reply_channel branch February 10, 2025 19:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@MauroToscano MauroToscano MauroToscano approved these changes

@JuArce JuArce JuArce approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@uri-99 uri-99 uri-99 requested changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@Oppen Oppen

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@Oppen @JuArce @uri-99 @MauroToscano