simln-lib/refactor: fully deterministic produce events #277

f3r10 · 2025-06-03T20:21:20Z

Description

The goal of this PR is to achieve fully deterministic runs to get reproducible simulations

Changes

nodes: HashMap<PublicKey, Arc<Mutex<dyn LightningNode>>> Update HashMap for a BTreeMap. A HashMap does not maintain an order, which has an impact when the simulation is running, making the results unpredictable. Using a BTreeMap, the order of the nodes is always the same.
dispatch_producers acts as a master task, generating all the payments of the nodes, getting the random destination, and only then spawning a threat for producing the events (produce_events)

Addresses #243

f3r10 · 2025-06-04T14:20:06Z

Opening in draft still need to fix some issues.
But I think it is ready for a first review pass @carlaKC

carlaKC · 2025-06-09T17:45:50Z

btw don't worry about fixups until this is out of draft - when review hasn't properly started it's okay to just squash em!

carlaKC

Direction looking good here! Main comment is that I think we need to have a step where we replenish our heap by calling generate_payments again?

If payment_count().is_none() we return a single payment from generate_payments
For RandomPaymentActivity, this means we'll do one payment per node and then shut down?

Related to this is that we possibly don't want to queue up tons of events for when payment_count is defined (say, we want a million payments, we'll queue up a million items which is a bit of a memory waste). This probably isn't much of a big deal, because I'd imagine this use case is primarily for smaller numbers but something to keep in mind as we address the above requirement.

Also would be good to rebase this early on to get to a more current base 🙏

f3r10 · 2025-06-10T20:10:14Z

Direction looking good here! Main comment is that I think we need to have a step where we replenish our heap by calling generate_payments again?

The idea would be to generate all the payments at once, so the master task would dispatch the events.

If payment_count().is_none() we return a single payment from generate_payments

Yes, in this case, only one payment is generated

For RandomPaymentActivity, this means we'll do one payment per node and then shut down?

Yes, right now it is working in this mode 🤔

Related to this is that we possibly don't want to queue up tons of events for when payment_count is defined (say, we want a million payments, we'll queue up a million items which is a bit of a memory waste). This probably isn't much of a big deal, because I'd imagine this use case is primarily for smaller numbers but something to keep in mind as we address the above requirement.

Yes, you are right, maybe it would be better to create some batches of payments. I am going to try to come up with an alternative to reduce the memory waste. 🤔

f3r10 · 2025-06-13T16:06:27Z

Hi @carlaKC , I've developed a new approach for the event generation system. The core idea is to centralize the random number generation to ensure deterministic outcomes for our simulations.

Here's a breakdown of the design:

Central Manager Task: A dedicated thread runs a central manager. This manager is the sole source for generating both random wait times and random destinations. By centralizing this, we ensure that the sequence of random numbers generated for these critical values is entirely reproducible, given a fixed seed.
Executor Event Listeners: For each executor, a separate thread is spawned. These threads act as listeners for payment events, forwarding them to the designated consumers once received.
Payment Event Generators: Concurrently, for each executor, another thread is spawned. These threads are responsible for generating payment events in a continuous loop (e.g., for RandomActivity). Each generator thread communicates with the central manager via a dedicated channel to request a wait time. After awaiting the specified duration, it sends another event to the manager to trigger the calculation of a random destination. Once the destination is determined, the manager dispatches a final event to the respective event listener thread (as described in the previous point).

This design ensures that the wait times and final destinations are entirely deterministic across simulation runs. However, there is a new challenge with the non-deterministic order of thread execution.

The Determinism Challenge

While the values generated (wait times, destinations) are fixed if the random number generator is seeded, the order in which the executor threads request these values is not guaranteed. For example, if we have ex1 and ex2 executors:

Execution 1:
    ex1 gets wait_time 0 → destination node_3
    ex2 gets wait_time 1 → destination node_4

Execution 2 (possible non-deterministic order):
    ex2 gets wait_time 0 → destination node_3
    ex1 gets wait_time 1 → destination node_4

This means that even though the sequence of random numbers from the central manager is the same, which executor consumes which number from that sequence is left to the operating system's scheduler, leading to variations in the overall simulation flow.

Proposed Solution for Execution Order

To achieve full simulation determinism, including the order of execution, I'm considering adding a tiny, randomized initial sleep time before each executor thread begins its main loop. While seemingly counter-intuitive, this jitter can effectively "break ties" in thread scheduling in a controlled, reproducible way when combined with a seeded random number generator. This would allow us to deterministically influence which thread acquires the next available random number from the central manager.

WDYT?

carlaKC · 2025-06-17T15:32:18Z

Deleted previous comment - it had some misunderstandings.

Why can't we keep the current approach of generating a queue of events and then replenish the queue when we run out of events? By generating all of our payment data in one place, we don't need to worry about thread execution order.

I think that this can be as simple as pushing a new event to the queue every time we pop one? We might need to track some state for payment count (because we'll need to remember how many we've had), but for random activity it should be reasonable.

carlaKC · 2025-06-17T15:47:11Z

Rough sketch of what I was picturing:

Queue up initial set of events:

for each executor
- Get wait time and destination
- Push wait time, destination and ExecutorKit onto head

Read from heap:

Pop event off heap
Sleep until wait time is reached
Send SimulationEvent::SendPayment into the channel for the executor
Generate a new wait time and destination from the ExecutorKit
Read from heap until shutdown

Instinct about this is:

Always generating payment destination in one places fixes our determinism issue
Re-queueing on pop + sorting by time means we'll never run out of events for each executor
The nasty thing will be payment counts, we're probably going to have to store those in the heap and know when we don't need to queue anything else

f3r10 · 2025-06-24T14:56:01Z

hi @carlaKC I think that now it is working as expected 💪

carlaKC

Some relative timestamp issues that we need to address - didn't occur to me earlier in design phase.

I noticed this when testing out against a toy network, would be good to have some unit tests to assert that we get the payment sequence that we're expecting (should be reasonable to do with defined activities with set wait times / counts).

carlaKC · 2025-06-25T20:09:28Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                                    log::info!(
+                                        "Payment count has been met for {}: {c} payments. Stopping the activity."
+                                    , executor.source_info);
+                                    return Ok(());


Shouldn't we continue here? If one activity hits its payment_count, it doesn't mean that we're finished with all other payments?

carlaKC · 2025-06-25T20:12:15Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

 }

+struct PaymentEvent {
+    wait_time: Duration,


We're going to have to use an absolute time here - my bad, should have realized that earlier in the design process.

Since we process and sleep all in one queue, a relative value doesn't work because we're always starting from zero when we pop an item off.

For example: say we have two activities, one executes every 5 seconds, the other every 10.

We push two items to the heap, one in 5 seconds one in 10 seconds

We sleep 5 seconds, then pop the 5 second event and fire it

We re-generate another event which should sleep 5 seconds

We'll push that onto the heap, and it's the next soonest event

We then sleep another 5 seconds, then pop the next 5 second event

We'll continue like this forever, never hitting the 10 second event. If we have absolute times, that won't happen because the 10 second event will eventually bubble up.

Oh!! right good catch

Looking at the latest version - isn't relative time still an issue here?

No, really. In the latest version, absolute_time is used for heap ordering, whereas wait_time is only for sleeping.

I added two unit tests, one for the defined activities with a defined payment count and the other for testing the random Rng, and the behaviour is as expected 🤔

No, really. In the latest version, absolute_time is used for heap ordering, whereas wait_time is only for sleeping.

Seems like unnecessary complexity to duplicate these values when we could just track absolute_time and sleep for abs time - now?

in each tick of the loop, the now time changes, and the difference between the abs time and now is not the same as the expected wait_time 🤔

Don't we want this? The amount of time that we want to wait for each payment is the time between payments for that node - not the amount of time since we popped it off our heap?

Eg: starting at t0, with the following payments in the heap
abs_time = t5
abs_time = t7

We start at t0

Pop t5 off the heap

Now = t0

Wait = t5 - t0 = 5 seconds

Dispatch payment after 5 seconds, now = t5

Pop t7 off the heap

Wait = t7 - t5 = 2 seconds

Dispatch payment after 2 seconds

Here, we've waited a total of 7 seconds to dispatch the payment that was set to go off at absolute time t7. If we tracked the time that we added it to calculate the total wait time, then we would have waited for 7 seconds plus the sum of all the payment waits before it?

you are right @carlaKC I think I found the problem. Right now, the next payment is generated before the sleep; therefore, the difference between abs time and now is, on some occasions, negative. If the next payment is generated after the sleep part, the difference is always positive.

Using the new approach, there are still problems with negative times, but in the order of -847.822µs, which should be zero.

.. quite difficult dealing with time 😅

.. quite difficult dealing with time 😅

indeed 💀

Using the new approach, there are still problems with negative times, but in the order of -847.822µs, which should be zero.

We might want to just add some sort of quality check in here that this isn't drifting too far? It we're lagging too far behind then the expected number of payments we simulate will be off. We can just pick a magic number and error out if it's too big.

Happy to leave this for a follow up!

This is the part that is dealing with it https://github.com/bitcoin-dev-project/sim-ln/pull/277/files#diff-887dd37ec76113778ea02ac50b44aa1ee99a96b73e917f2fa1d3e42358792f43R1104
For now, if the times are negative, it will always return 0s.

I also found another issue related to how time measurements are done in Rust. For example, instead of getting 4s, the result will be 3.99324, and at the end, summing up those differences would result in breaking the deterministic aspect that we want to achieve.

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

carlaKC · 2025-06-25T20:13:49Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                                    } else {
+                                        generate_payments(&mut heap, executor, current_count + 1)?;
+                                    }


nit: don't need the else branch if we're continuing

carlaKC · 2025-06-25T20:15:08Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

    Ok(())
 }

+fn generate_payments(


nit: generate_payment? we're only adding one

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

carlaKC · 2025-06-26T16:37:02Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

-
-            tasks.spawn(async move {
-                let source = executor.source_info.clone();
+            generate_payments(&mut heap, executor, 0)?;


Looking at this again - I think we can actually just store the payment event in the heap and keep a hashmap of executors / payment counts. When we pop an event off, we just look up the stuff we need in the hashmap and increment the count there, rather than clagging up the hashmap with large structs.

f3r10 · 2025-07-03T20:19:50Z

Still thinking about how to add tests to assert that we get the payment sequence that we're expecting 🤔
Right now, there is only one test checking the number of payments and the expected elapsed time

carlaKC · 2025-07-07T19:47:43Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                                if c == payload.current_count {
+                                    log::info!(
+                                        "Payment count has been met for {}: {c} payments. Stopping the activity."
+                                    , executor.source_info);


nit: just to be aware of, cargo fmt breaks in selects for some ungodly reason, so it's worth trying to do a little manual formatting

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

carlaKC

I'm finding the design decisions in this PR quite difficult to follow. To me the obvious approach is to queue cheap-to-copy payment events and track node stats/executors in one big hashmap. Happy to hear arguments for this way, but currently not convinced.

carlaKC · 2025-07-10T18:40:14Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                            let payment_amount = executor.payment_generator.payment_amount(payload.capacity);
+                            let amount = match payment_amount {
+                                Ok(amt) => {
+                                    if amt == 0 {
+                                        log::debug!(
+                                            "Skipping zero amount payment for {source} -> {}.", payload.destination
+                                        );
+                                        generate_payment(&mut heap, executor, payload.current_count, payment_event_payloads.clone()).await?;
+                                        continue;
                                    }
-                                }
+                                    amt
+                                },
+                                Err(e) => {
+                                    return Err(SimulationError::PaymentGenerationError(e));
+                                },


let payment_amount = executor .payment_generator .payment_amount(payload.capacity) .map_err(SimulationError::PaymentGenerationError)?; generate_payment(&mut heap, executor, payload.current_count + 1, payment_event_payloads.clone()).await?; if payment_amount == 0 { log::debug!( "Skipping zero amount payment for {source} -> {}.", payload.destination, ); continue; }

Somehow with this change, rust is not able to infer the Err type and force me to add return Ok::<(), SimulationError>(()) 🤔

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

carlaKC · 2025-07-10T19:05:39Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

 }

+struct PaymentEvent {
+    wait_time: Duration,


No, really. In the latest version, absolute_time is used for heap ordering, whereas wait_time is only for sleeping.

Seems like unnecessary complexity to duplicate these values when we could just track absolute_time and sleep for abs time - now?

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

f3r10 · 2025-07-14T11:26:47Z

I'm finding the design decisions in this PR quite difficult to follow. To me the obvious approach is to queue cheap-to-copy payment events and track node stats/executors in one big hashmap. Happy to hear arguments for this way, but currently not convinced.

Thanks for the feedback, using one big hashmap for the executors is a much better design.

carlaKC

Haven't reviewed the tests yet, but looking semantically correct now 👍

No real need for fixups here since this is one commit - feel free to squash what you have and just force push changes, there isn't a commit structure to preserve in this case.

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:30:32Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

 }

+struct PaymentEvent {
+    pubkey: PublicKey,


nit: pubkey -> source?

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:30:42Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+    capacity: Option<u64>,
+}
+
+struct PaymentEventPayload {


This isn't every intuitively named.

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:32:30Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

        let producer_tasks = TaskTracker::new();
        match self
-            .dispatch_producers(activities, consumer_channels, &producer_tasks)
+            .dispatch_producers(activities, event_sender.clone(), &producer_tasks)


unnecessary clone

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:37:45Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs


-        // Create a network generator with a shared RNG for all nodes.
-        let network_generator = Arc::new(Mutex::new(
+        // in order to choose a deterministic destination is necessary to sort the nodes by its public key


nit: Comments should start with capital and end with .

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:39:16Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+        let network_generator = Arc::new(
            NetworkGraphView::new(
-                active_nodes.values().cloned().collect(),
+                sorted_actives_nodes,


Here the caller somewhat assumes understanding of the implementation of the network generator.

I think that we should move this sort into NetworkGraphView and then add a note on the trait that implementations should be deterministic if called with the same seed.

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:41:44Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+
+struct PaymentEventPayload {
+    executor: ExecutorKit,
+    current_count: u64,


Thoughts on making this an Option? Since we don't need it for payments that aren't count-bounded.

I think it is not necessary. It will make the code unnecessarily more verbose. Right now, the counter is only used here.

if let Some(c) = payment_tracker.executor.payment_generator.payment_count() { if c == payment_tracker.payments_completed { log::info!( "Payment count has been met for {}: {c} payments. Stopping the activity.", payment_tracker.executor.source_info); continue } }

And also in get_payment_delay, which does not accept an option

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:43:30Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

-                        }
+                        },
+                        None => {
+                            break


Let's add a log here - can see it being useful in debugging

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:49:13Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                                log::debug!(
+                                    "Skipping zero amount payment for {source} -> {}.", destination
+                                );
+                                generate_payment(&mut heap, pubkey, payload.current_count, &mut payment_event_payloads, SystemTime::now()).await?;


None of the ? errors will be caught now, because we're spawning this in a task? I believe the loop will exit but we won't see the error.

I think that we should pull this out into a function and then the spawn callsite is responsible for checking whether it exists with an error and triggering shutdown appropriately if it does (like the tasks spawned in internal_run).

The generate_payment is not part of the task.spawn; it is located just before.
As I understand, the select! macro does not spawn tasks 🤔

I mean that we spawn all of this code in a task on line 1088. Any ? that we use in the block of code that is spawned in the task is just swallowed, so we can silently fail rather than printing out the error.

To try this yourself, add a return(Err()) anywhere in this select - the program shuts down but we can't see the error.

Oh right, I see it now 😅

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:50:43Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                                    // the output of duration_since is not perfectly round affecting the waiting time
+                                    // and as consequence the results are not deterministic; for this reason
+                                    // it is necessary to round the output.
+                                    Duration::from_secs(elapsed.as_secs_f64().round() as u64)


Motivation for using seconds here?

it is also available as_millis_f64() but is not stable yet

#[unstable(feature = "duration_millis_float", issue = "122451")] #[must_use] #[inline] #[rustc_const_unstable(feature = "duration_consts_float", issue = "72440")] pub const fn as_millis_f64(&self) -> f64 { ...

No need then!

carlaKC · 2025-07-16T20:55:06Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                            // Only proceed with a payment if the amount is non-zero, otherwise skip this round. If we can't get
+                            // a payment amount something has gone wrong (because we should have validated that we can always
+                            // generate amounts), so we exit.
+                            let amount = payload.executor.payment_generator.payment_amount(capacity).map_err(SimulationError::PaymentGenerationError)?;


Why not generate this along with the rest of the details we push onto the heap?

Doesn't necessarily have to change, just interested in motivation.

🤔 not motivation. I am going to move it along with the other details so is more concise.

carlaKC · 2025-08-04T15:22:42Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+    payments_tracker
+        .entry(payment_tracker.executor.source_info.pubkey)
+        .and_modify(|p| p.payments_completed = current_count);


If we increment this counter when we add an event (rather than complete one), we'll always need to push an event to the heap that we don't need, and then check our count and exit when it comes to the top.

Given that we already have to look up our payments_tracker in produce_payment_events, I think it may make more sense to just do the incrementing in there and immediately exit once we've hit the desired count?

My gut says that this is the right call because it pushes this method more towards the "single responsibility" of just creating and pushing a payment that we want to execute in future.

I agree, I will make the change

carlaKC · 2025-08-04T15:25:32Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                                // The output of duration_since is not perfectly round affecting the waiting time
+                                // and as consequence the results are not deterministic; for this reason
+                                // it is necessary to round the output.
+                                Duration::from_secs(elapsed.as_secs_f64().round() as u64)


Could you explain this to me a bit more? Not sure that I'm following why rounding here matters - I would have thought that it's only the order that we push into the queue that matters?

The problem here is with the wait_time; the result of absolute_time.duration_since(internal_now) is always different between executions.
If the difference has to be 1, the result of duration_since can be 0.99 or 0.989 .... and so on. At the end, these small differences sum up and have an impact on the deterministic events.

Gotcha - so it impacts the timing (but not the ordering)?

A few other things probably impact exact timing of payments anyway, so rounding seems like a decent solution.

carlaKC · 2025-08-04T15:26:23Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+                        }
+                    },
+                    None => {
+                        log::debug!("No more payment events placed to process");


nit: "No more payments in queue to process"

carlaKC · 2025-08-04T15:28:18Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+        // Create simulation with a long timeout that we don't expect to be reached
+        let simulation = Simulation::new(
+            SimulationCfg::new(
+                None,     // without timeout


Comments don't match - long timeout vs no timeout

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

carlaKC · 2025-08-04T15:31:27Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+            source: node_1.clone(),
+            destination: node_2.clone(),
+            start_secs: None,
+            count: Some(5),                                // 10 payments


Comment is incorrect.

More generally, I don't find that these inline comments add much value (especially for named fields rather than parameters). Smells like chatgpt and adds noise.

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

carlaKC · 2025-08-04T15:57:22Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

        let producer_tasks = TaskTracker::new();
        match self
-            .dispatch_producers(activities, consumer_channels, &producer_tasks)
+            .dispatch_producers(activities, event_sender, &producer_tasks)


I don't think that we need producer_tasks now that we've got a single task populating the queue for us?

Previously, we needed to track them separately because we wanted to know when the set was fully completed, but now we'll always know (because our loop naturally exits).

I think we can get rid of producer_tasks and the watching task below (line 840) in favor of just always triggering shutdown after we're done generating events?

Yes, I agree

carlaKC · 2025-08-04T15:58:42Z

simln-lib/src/lib.rs

+    Ok(())
+}
+
+async fn produce_payment_events<C: Clock>(


nittynitnit: can we move this under dispatch_producers in the file? Makes it a bit easier to go between the two.

carlaKC

Functionality is working, but there are quite are still a few things I'd like addressed here.

This has already taken up quite a few review cycles, so I've opened up a follow up on #300. Let me know if you have any issues with it.

Let's go ahead and squash this, and we can merge the two together once you've taken a look at the additional changes.

simln-lib/refactor: fully deterministic produce events

f3r10 · 2025-08-11T14:06:54Z

@carlaKC I have reviewed the additional changes, and everything is ok.

carlaKC reviewed Jun 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

f3r10 force-pushed the refactor_fully_deterministic_produce_events branch from b06a289 to 1b3a21f Compare June 10, 2025 20:31

f3r10 force-pushed the refactor_fully_deterministic_produce_events branch from a99bbff to 2beccfa Compare June 23, 2025 20:47

f3r10 marked this pull request as ready for review June 24, 2025 14:56

f3r10 requested a review from carlaKC June 24, 2025 14:56

carlaKC reviewed Jun 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

carlaKC reviewed Jun 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

carlaKC mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2025

Refactoring the shutdown process to fix a payment count bug #235

Closed

f3r10 force-pushed the refactor_fully_deterministic_produce_events branch from 6d7aa41 to aea34ab Compare July 3, 2025 16:49

f3r10 requested a review from carlaKC July 7, 2025 14:48

carlaKC reviewed Jul 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

simln-lib/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

f3r10 requested a review from carlaKC July 8, 2025 17:42

f3r10 force-pushed the refactor_fully_deterministic_produce_events branch 2 times, most recently from 4b07890 to 3f23420 Compare July 8, 2025 18:07

carlaKC reviewed Jul 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

f3r10 requested a review from carlaKC July 14, 2025 12:13

f3r10 force-pushed the refactor_fully_deterministic_produce_events branch from c404905 to 8d6dd4a Compare July 16, 2025 16:34

carlaKC reviewed Jul 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

f3r10 force-pushed the refactor_fully_deterministic_produce_events branch 2 times, most recently from 25cb506 to 767fe9c Compare July 18, 2025 12:03

f3r10 requested a review from carlaKC July 18, 2025 12:05

carlaKC reviewed Aug 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

f3r10 requested a review from carlaKC August 6, 2025 16:11

carlaKC mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2025

Deterministic Payment Event Follow Ups #300

Merged

carlaKC approved these changes Aug 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

carlaKC mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2025

Report Pathfinding Outcomes to Scorer in SimNode #291

Merged

simln-lib/refactor: fully deterministic produce events

8b977ba

simln-lib/refactor: fully deterministic produce events

f3r10 force-pushed the refactor_fully_deterministic_produce_events branch from a45aa51 to 8b977ba Compare August 11, 2025 13:49

f3r10 requested a review from carlaKC August 11, 2025 14:07

carlaKC merged commit 3ef5c69 into bitcoin-dev-project:main Aug 12, 2025
2 checks passed

carlaKC mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2025

Feature Request: Fully Deterministic produce_events #243

Closed

simln-lib/refactor: fully deterministic produce events #277

simln-lib/refactor: fully deterministic produce events #277

Uh oh!

Conversation

f3r10 commented Jun 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Changes

Uh oh!

f3r10 commented Jun 4, 2025

Uh oh!

carlaKC commented Jun 9, 2025

Uh oh!

carlaKC left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

f3r10 commented Jun 10, 2025

Uh oh!

f3r10 commented Jun 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

The Determinism Challenge

Proposed Solution for Execution Order

Uh oh!

carlaKC commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

carlaKC commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

f3r10 commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

carlaKC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

f3r10 Jul 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

f3r10 Jul 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

f3r10 commented Jul 3, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

carlaKC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

f3r10 commented Jun 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

carlaKC left a comment •

edited

Loading

f3r10 commented Jun 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

f3r10 Jul 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

f3r10 Jul 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading