Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Backport #4791 #5247

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Aug 9, 2024
Merged

Backport #4791 #5247

merged 6 commits into from
Aug 9, 2024

Conversation

AndreiEres
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@AndreiEres
Prepare PVFs if node is a validator in the next session (#4791)
1cf6180 
Closes #4324
- On every active leaf candidate-validation subsystem checks if the node
is the next session authority.
- If it is, it fetches backed candidates and prepares unknown PVFs.
- We limit number of PVFs per block to not overload subsystem.
@AndreiEres
Make changes minor removing interface changing
efb849b
@AndreiEres AndreiEres requested a review from a team as a code owner August 5, 2024 15:46
@EgorPopelyaev EgorPopelyaev added T0-node This PR/Issue is related to the topic “node”. A3-backport Pull request is already reviewed well in another branch. T8-polkadot This PR/Issue is related to/affects the Polkadot network. labels Aug 5, 2024
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 6, 2024 •
edited
Loading

This pull request is amending an existing release. Please proceed with extreme caution,
as to not impact downstream teams that rely on the stability of it. Some things to consider:

  • Backports are only for 'patch' or 'minor' changes. No 'major' or other breaking change.
  • Should be a legit fix for some bug, not adding tons of new features.
  • Must either be already audited or trivial (not sure audit).
Emergency Bypass

If you really need to bypass this check: add validate: false to each crate
in the Prdoc where a breaking change is introduced. This will release a new major
version of that crate and all its reverse dependencies and basically break the release.

@ggwpez
Copy link
Member

ggwpez commented Aug 6, 2024

I think the CI being mostly red here is normal because of manual patching in the release process, but we should try to fix that eventually @Morganamilo.

@Morganamilo
Copy link
Contributor

The prdoc CI is failing because the PRdoc needs to be for this PR not the original number. Not sure if that should be changed in future as it obscures the true source of the PRs in changelogs and PR tracing.

the quick checks CI seem to be failing because the release process removes the sassafras crates, removes a bunch of features and has edited the toml files in a way that it doesn't like the formatting.

@AndreiEres
Copy link
Contributor Author

The prdoc CI is failing because the PRdoc needs to be for this PR not the original number. Not sure if that should be changed in future as it obscures the true source of the PRs in changelogs and PR tracing.

the quick checks CI seem to be failing because the release process removes the sassafras crates, removes a bunch of features and has edited the toml files in a way that it doesn't like the formatting.

Should I add a copy of original PR doc but with new number?

@ggwpez
Copy link
Member

ggwpez commented Aug 7, 2024

Should I add a copy of original PR doc but with new number?

Yea just rename the file to the number of this MR to make the CI pick it up.

AndreiEres and others added 2 commits August 7, 2024 13:52
@AndreiEres
Update pr doc
b98c9d1
@jasl @AndreiEres
Upgrade time crate, fix compilation on Rust 1.80 (#5149)
27fc49d 
This will fix the compilation on the latest Rust 1.80.0

PS. There are tons of new warnings about feature gates and annotations,
it would be nice you guys to investigate them
alexggh
alexggh reviewed Aug 8, 2024
View reviewed changes
Cargo.lock Outdated
"serde",
"time-core",
"time-macros",
]

[[package]]
name = "time-core"
version = "0.1.1"
version = "0.1.2"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wait why do we need this ? I would say a stable release should use the same toolchain as we used for the initial version.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Time does not build anymore with newer compilers, but this does not fix it since it is already releases.
Maybe revert and just emerge, CI wont be happy anytime soon.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Time does not build anymore with newer compilers

I see, ideally we would want to use the same compiler images between same stable minor releases.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ggwpez reverted.

@ggwpez ggwpez merged commit dda8ce3 into stable2407 Aug 9, 2024
152 of 162 checks passed
@ggwpez ggwpez deleted the AndreiEres/stable2407-backport-pvf-precompilation branch August 9, 2024 11:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ggwpez ggwpez ggwpez left review comments

@alexggh alexggh alexggh approved these changes

@lexnv lexnv lexnv approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A3-backport Pull request is already reviewed well in another branch. T0-node This PR/Issue is related to the topic “node”. T8-polkadot This PR/Issue is related to/affects the Polkadot network.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@AndreiEres @ggwpez @Morganamilo @alexggh @lexnv @EgorPopelyaev @jasl