-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 261
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
Cache and resend, rather than recreate, builder API registrations #4040
Conversation
continue | ||
if validator.externalBuilderRegistration.isNone: | ||
let validatorRegistration = | ||
await node.getValidatorRegistration(validator, epoch) |
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.
if someone adds a validator via rest api, I'm guessing this await can get interleaved (cc @zah?)
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.
In general, there are lots of the usual kinds approaches people use when modifying sequences in place, but for this purpose, it mostly matters whether table mvalues
iteration works with that. It's fine if some new validator is missed this epoch around in that scenario, and it's even fine to just abort the table scan in a given epoch if there's any issues of this sort. I'd prefer either, ideally, to adding more internal buffering to this function of information on all attached validators, but that could, ultimately, solve this.
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 problem here is that the contents of the validators
table may change while you are iterating over it. This would be detected as a Defect
by the standard library.
The standard work-around is to copy the list of validators prior to starting the iteration by iterating over dup(node.attachedValidators[].validators.values)
.
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.
cf539c9 works around this. Rather than copy the values in their entirety, which would be a better approach for a read-only application, here it copies the keys, because it's more obviously symmetrical that the access mechanism that works for reading also works for writing.
#3998