-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 465
fix: fall back to head root for proposer dep_root on future decision slot #9499
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
Closed
lodekeeper
wants to merge
2
commits into
ChainSafe:unstable
from
lodekeeper:fix/proposer-duties-decision-root-future-slot
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
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 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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@lodekeeper using
head.blockRootis wrong for majority of the timesuggest to fallback to
get_proposer_duties()v1, which is how it worked in v1.43 #9518There 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.
You're right — thanks, I'm convinced.
head.blockRootchanges every slot, so for the pre-FulucurrentEpoch + 1request from a mid-epoch head state it makes the V1dependent_rootchurn every block instead of being a stable decision root. That defeats the point ofdependent_root— a VC would see it change constantly and re-poll every slot.And my Lighthouse citation doesn't actually apply here: LH's
head_block_rootbranch is the genesis / at-decision edge of the current-epoch computation, not a future requested epoch.#9518's approach is the correct one: when the requested epoch's decision slot is in the future, fall back to the state-epoch decision root (last block of the previous epoch). It's stable, it flips to the real decision root at the epoch boundary (correctly signaling a re-fetch), and it matches v1.43 — your test asserting V1 == V2 and a stable root captures exactly that.
Closing #9499 in favor of #9518. 👍