Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 22, 2025. It is now read-only.

add validator catchup to multi-node test #450

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 29, 2018

Conversation

sakridge
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@garious
Copy link
Contributor

garious commented Jun 25, 2018

Can you move that to a separate test? And rename the original to something more precise. Monolithic catch-all tests are the worst.

if let Ok(bal) = client.poll_get_balance(&bob_pubkey) {
info!("validator balance {}", bal);
if bal == leader_balance {
success += 1;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you need to reset this to 0 if you are gong to rerun the loop

@rob-solana
Copy link
Contributor

thanks, Stephen.

my approach was to move leader creation farther up. this test is better, I think

@sakridge sakridge force-pushed the validator-catchup-test branch from eb3d491 to e605ae0 Compare June 26, 2018 01:23
@rob-solana rob-solana added the work in progress This isn't quite right yet label Jun 26, 2018
@sakridge sakridge changed the title [wip] add validator catchup to multi-node test add validator catchup to multi-node test Jun 27, 2018
leader.sockets.respond,
leader.sockets.gossip,
exit.clone(),
sink(),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we need to sink to tmp file, and let the validators restart from there.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a confusing comment, since it's on the sink() line. When you say "sink to a tmp file", do you mean "sync to a tmp file"?

@sakridge sakridge force-pushed the validator-catchup-test branch from e605ae0 to 7597d80 Compare June 29, 2018 15:21
@sakridge sakridge force-pushed the validator-catchup-test branch from 7597d80 to 360b41e Compare June 29, 2018 15:59
@sakridge sakridge removed the work in progress This isn't quite right yet label Jun 29, 2018
@sakridge sakridge merged commit f3df5df into solana-labs:master Jun 29, 2018
vkomenda pushed a commit to vkomenda/solana that referenced this pull request Aug 29, 2021
Bumps [eslint](https://github.com/eslint/eslint) from 7.8.1 to 7.9.0.
- [Release notes](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/releases)
- [Changelog](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md)
- [Commits](eslint/eslint@v7.8.1...v7.9.0)

Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>

Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
godmodegalactus pushed a commit to blockworks-foundation/solana that referenced this pull request Jan 5, 2024
Use cluster info functions for tpu (solana-labs#345) (solana-labs#347)
Use git rev-parse for git sha
Remove blacklisted tx from message_hash_to_transaction (Backport solana-labs#374) (solana-labs#376)
Updates scripts for easy local setup. (solana-labs#383)
Backports sim_bundle improvements (solana-labs#407)
backports clone derivation 416 (solana-labs#417)
Backport solana-labs#419: add upsert to AccountOverrides (solana-labs#420)

backports solana-labs#430 v1.16: update jito-programs sha (solana-labs#431)

[JIT-1661] Faster Autosnapshot (solana-labs#406)

Fix Buildkite warnings (solana-labs#437)

Backport solana-labs#446 to v1.16 (solana-labs#447)

backport 428, runtime plugin (solana-labs#429)

v1.16: Backport solana-labs#449 (solana-labs#450)
jeffwashington pushed a commit to jeffwashington/solana that referenced this pull request Apr 19, 2024
* runtime: Stakes::new: avoid extra loops over stakes.stake_delegations

* runtime: parallelize Stakes::new with rayon

* Address review comments

* Address more comments
jeffwashington pushed a commit to jeffwashington/solana that referenced this pull request Apr 19, 2024
* runtime: Stakes::new: avoid extra loops over stakes.stake_delegations

* runtime: parallelize Stakes::new with rayon

* Address review comments

* Address more comments
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants