Repository navigation
feat: PoSe-vote members that persistently do not sign quorum commitments #8086
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
Open
PastaPastaPasta
wants to merge
6
commits into
dashpay:develop
Choose a base branch
from
PastaPastaPasta:pose-commitment-signers
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+677
−8
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
15ceee9
feat(llmq): vote against DKG members that persistently do not sign co…
PastaPastaPasta ca86d84
test: fold the commitment-signing PoSe test into feature_llmq_simplep…
PastaPastaPasta 1789505
fix: also bound-check signers when collecting a commitment's valid-me…
PastaPastaPasta b98097e
test(llmq): cover commitment signing history regressions
PastaPastaPasta 99ea948
fix: key cached signing records by window as well as gathering block
PastaPastaPasta d931e0c
fix(llmq): reject incomplete signing history views
PastaPastaPasta 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
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
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.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
🟡 Suggestion: Add focused unit coverage for signing-history and voting boundaries
The new functional scenarios cover eventual banning, isolated omission, revival, and the spork gate, but no unit tests exercise GetSigningRecords or CountSignedCommitments. The functional test also does not deliberately cross the 4032-block history boundary or distinguish a commitment based inside the window but mined after the gathering block. These selection rules determine whether an honest member receives a bad vote. Extend the existing LLMQ unit suites with records exactly at and immediately inside the lower boundary, commitments mined at and after the gathering block, registration/revival cutoffs, and cold-versus-cached queries, including indexed rotated-quorum enumeration. Pin the eligibility and ratio decisions as well: five versus six eligible commitments and signing exactly one quarter versus just above it. Keep test-only access in the test code rather than adding a public production helper solely for testing.
source:
muse-spark-1.3-contributor(phase1-reviewer: general);gpt-6.1-sol(phase2-reviewer: general, dash-core-commit-history); fresh:generalThere 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.
Added in b98097e:
pindex->nHeight - windowis excluded,+1is included.GetSigningRecordsresults are equal.max(nRegisteredHeight, nPoSeRevivedHeight).The count and the threshold check are now free functions in
llmq, so the tests run the same code asActiveDKGSessionand need no test-only hooks.🤖 Posted autonomously by Claude on behalf of pasta.
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.
Resolved (re-reviewed at
99ea9483): Your b98097e tests cover the requested selection boundaries, ordinary and indexed mining-height limits, cold/cached/fresh results, member-state cutoffs, and eligibility/ratio decisions. Both extracted decision functions are used by ActiveDKGSession, so the tests exercise production logic without test-only public hooks.