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.

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

Merge develop into next #4575

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Mar 21, 2024
Merged

Merge develop into next #4575

merged 21 commits into from
Mar 21, 2024

Conversation

obycode
Copy link
Contributor

@obycode obycode commented Mar 21, 2024

Merges latest develop into next. Among other recent changes, this includes the reorg flapping fix which is needed for testnet.

wileyj and others added 21 commits February 1, 2024 15:23
…velop-20240206

Chore/merge master to develop 20240206
fix: builds on various archs/platforms re: PR 4331
…on-to-composite

Move Checksum Generation to Composite
…ith-composite

Check Multiple Tests' Success at Once
refactor: replace `u32::max_value()` with `u32::MAX`
This test (from Jude) can reproduce the problematic behavior when
the burnchain flaps between two branches.

- We get blocks at height 211 - 213
- Then we get a fork, with different blocks at 211-213, as well as 214
  and 215.
- We then flap back to the original fork, so it goes back to the common
  ancestor, 210, and tries to download 211-215
- When it gets block 211, it is already in the database, so it fails,
  cancelling the download of the rest of the blocks, leaving 214 and 215
  in this branch not stored
- Then we try to store 216, but its parent 215 is not stored yet, so we
  cannot continue.

The fix for this is to ignore attempts to store duplicate blocks.
This test passes locally but fails in CI. We cannot let it hold back
this PR, so comment it out for now.
@obycode obycode requested review from jcnelson and wileyj March 21, 2024 17:14
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 21, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 17.28972% with 177 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.17%. Comparing base (d2649ff) to head (5d4f8cd).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #4575      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.25%   83.17%   -0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         456      456              
  Lines      330593   330726     +133     
  Branches      323      323              
==========================================
- Hits       275248   275075     -173     
- Misses      55337    55643     +306     
  Partials        8        8              
Files Coverage Δ
stackslib/src/chainstate/coordinator/tests.rs 90.80% <100.00%> (ø)
testnet/stacks-node/src/tests/integrations.rs 99.64% <100.00%> (ø)
stackslib/src/burnchains/bitcoin/indexer.rs 36.54% <50.00%> (-0.24%) ⬇️
stackslib/src/chainstate/coordinator/mod.rs 61.66% <0.00%> (+0.51%) ⬆️
stackslib/src/burnchains/db.rs 80.56% <71.42%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
testnet/stacks-node/src/tests/epoch_205.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
testnet/stacks-node/src/tests/epoch_23.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
testnet/stacks-node/src/tests/epoch_22.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
testnet/stacks-node/src/tests/epoch_24.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
testnet/stacks-node/src/tests/epoch_21.rs 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 2 more

... and 25 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d2649ff...5d4f8cd. Read the comment docs.

@obycode obycode requested a review from jbencin March 21, 2024 18:54
@obycode obycode enabled auto-merge March 21, 2024 19:09
@obycode obycode added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 21, 2024
Merged via the queue into next with commit c601cf7 Mar 21, 2024
2 checks passed
@blockstack-devops
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@stacks-network stacks-network locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 3, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants