MTG-750 Calculating bubblegum and account checksums #291
Conversation
snorochevskiy
force-pushed
the
MTG-688_consistency_checksum
branch
from
0c84d5c to
ba9fa93
Compare
| hasher = Hasher::default(); | ||
| } | ||
| hasher.hash(&k); | ||
| hasher.hash(&v); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we save value as well? Why not only key or value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@n00m4d
I assume that theoretically (not sure how high the probability is) we might have a situation, when on different peers there are bubblegum changes with same pubkey+slot+seq, but different signatures.
It you believe that this is impossible, then I can remove the signature from the bubblegum change entity (and from the hashing).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmmm, not sure either. Ok let's leave it for now 😅
snorochevskiy
force-pushed
the
MTG-688_consistency_checksum
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f3636c6 to
b504cad
Compare
snorochevskiy
changed the title
snorochevskiy
force-pushed
the
MTG-688_consistency_checksum
branch
from
b504cad to
23cb90a
Compare
snorochevskiy
force-pushed
the
MTG-688_consistency_checksum
branch
from
7cd234a to
8595abb
Compare
| @@ -185,6 +188,14 @@ pub async fn main() -> Result<(), IngesterError> { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| let rpc_client = Arc::new(RpcClient::new(config.rpc_host.clone())); | |||
| let (nft_change_snd, nft_change_rcv) = mpsc::channel(NTF_CHANGES_NOTIFICATION_QUEUE_SIZE); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a comment: Manages event related to epochs changes and notifications (new epoch started, late data - epoch invalidation). Producers are processors (bubblegum and account), consumer - consistency calculator.
| pub fn track_slot_counter(slot: u64) -> u64 { | ||
| let prev = LAST_SLOT.load(std::sync::atomic::Ordering::Relaxed); | ||
| if slot > prev { | ||
| LAST_SLOT.store(slot, std::sync::atomic::Ordering::Relaxed); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This code does not guaranteed to store the top slot processed, rather one of the top slots. Please add a comment
| checksum: Checksum::Calculating, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| pub const ACC_BUCKET_INVALIDATE: AccountNftBucket = AccountNftBucket { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| pub const ACC_BUCKET_INVALIDATE: AccountNftBucket = AccountNftBucket { | |
| pub const ACC_BUCKET_INVALIDATED: AccountNftBucket = AccountNftBucket { |
| checksum: Checksum::Invalidated, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| pub const ACC_GRAND_BUCKET_INVALIDATE: AccountNftGrandBucket = AccountNftGrandBucket { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| pub const ACC_GRAND_BUCKET_INVALIDATE: AccountNftGrandBucket = AccountNftGrandBucket { | |
| pub const ACC_GRAND_BUCKET_INVALIDATED: AccountNftGrandBucket = AccountNftGrandBucket { |
| }); | ||
| if await_operation { | ||
| let _ = task | ||
| .await |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will the tasked be always called if we don't await it?
| NftChangesTracker { sender } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// Persists given account NFT change into the sotrage, and, if the change is from the epoch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| /// Persists given account NFT change into the sotrage, and, if the change is from the epoch | |
| /// Persists given account NFT change into the storage, and, if the change is from the epoch |
See: #316