-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 721
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
Disable development eras configuration flag #4030
Merged
iohk-bors
merged 2 commits into
master
from
jordan/remove-test-enable-development-hardfork-eras-requirement
Jun 25, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why is alonzo protocol version that node sees changed here (yes, there were 2 forks in alonzo era, but changing them abruptly all of a sudden without mapping it against fork is very hacky)?? This breaks existing explorers on public testnet that do check on protocol major version in block header...(now we have blocks with different protocol_major adopted on testnet without a fork submission - randomly based on node's presumption of protocol version, if this is the aim to go on mainnet too - best to add some CIP/docs beforehand - there is already efforts done by @JaredCorduan to reduce the confusion) , this is a deviation that further confuses what's mentioned in CIP 274 from historical view
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this indeed is creating a mess checking block version for specific era
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change looks correct to me. We want we the nodes in the Alonzo era that are prepared for the upgrade to signal that they are ready by putting major protocol number 7 in the block header (since 7 corresponds to the next ledger era, Babbage).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The change looks correct for future (looking at version from babbage back to alonzo), but it seems to be at the expense of current (future past) - using vague version in block header that is kinda unrelated to actual protocol_major version , in case of which all the components using block header representation
of
protocol_major
now need to rename it to node version.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is actually how it was designed to work from the very beginning, going back to the Shelley ledger spec. See section 13 of https://hydra.iohk.io/job/Cardano/cardano-ledger/shelleyLedgerSpec/latest/download-by-type/doc-pdf/ledger-spec.
The version listed in the block header indicates the latest version of the protocol that the block producer is prepared to upgrade to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the link, looks like some of us have been understanding the value of this block header wrong the whole time 😢 Can we add a reference to this (if not a short description) to the CIP 274?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is a most excellent idea!