Dvir/papyrus consensus context

[DvirYo-starkware]

This change is 

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.40%. Comparing base (25c2370) to head (dcc92a9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2111      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.40%   68.40%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         132      132              
  Lines       17602    17602              
  Branches    17602    17602              
==========================================
- Hits        12041    12040       -1     
  Misses       4226     4226              
- Partials     1335     1336       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, 7 of 7 files at r2.
Reviewable status: 5 of 7 files reviewed, 9 unresolved discussions (waiting on @DvirYo-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/lib.rs line 32 at r1 (raw file):

    loop {
        info!("Starting consensus for height {start_height}");
        let mut shc = SingleHeightConsensus::new(start_height, context.clone(), validator_id).await;

Suggestion:

        let mut shc = SingleHeightConsensus::new(current_height, context.clone(), validator_id).await;

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 2 at r2 (raw file):

#[cfg(test)]
#[path = "papyrus_context_test.rs"]

?

Suggestion:

papyrus_consensus_context_test

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 57 at r2 (raw file):

}

const CHANNEL_SIZE: usize = 5000;

Why 5k?

Code quote:

const CHANNEL_SIZE: usize = 5000;

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 100 at r2 (raw file):

                        .block_hash,
                })
                .expect("Send should succeed");

And below

Suggestion:

            let block_hash = txn
                        .get_block_header(height)
                        .expect("Get header from storage failed")
                        .expect(&format!(
                            "Block in {height} was no found in storage although waiting for it"
                        ))
                        .block_hash;
            fin_sender
                .send(PapyrusConsensusBlock {
                    content: transactions,
                    id: block_hash,
                })
                .expect("Send should succeed");

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 124 at r2 (raw file):

                .expect("Get transactions from storage failed")
                .expect(&format!(
                    "Block in {height} was no found in storage although waiting for it"

Suggestion:

                    "Block in {height} was not found in storage despite waiting for it"

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 128 at r2 (raw file):

            for tx in transactions.iter() {
                let recived_tx = content

And below

Suggestion:

received_tx

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 162 at r2 (raw file):

    fn proposer(&self, _validators: &Vec<ValidatorId>, _height: BlockNumber) -> ValidatorId {
        0u8.into()
    }

btw for validators, in M1 we just expect to pass a config on startup with a static list of validators.
proposer will just be something simple like self.config.validators[height % len]

Code quote:

    async fn validators(&self, _height: BlockNumber) -> Vec<ValidatorId> {
        vec![0u8.into(), 1u8.into(), 2u8.into()]
    }

    fn proposer(&self, _validators: &Vec<ValidatorId>, _height: BlockNumber) -> ValidatorId {
        0u8.into()
    }

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 195 at r2 (raw file):

const SLEEP_BETWEEN_CHECK_FOR_BLOCK: Duration = Duration::from_secs(10);

async fn wait_to_block(

This means that papyrus storage is behind the block that we want and so we will wait until the block can be found?

Suggestion:

async fn wait_for_block(

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_context_test.rs line 101 at r2 (raw file):

}

fn get_storage_with_block_and_papyrus_context()

Doesn't mention network_receiver and is already pretty long.

I thought that convention was to put these types of functions above the tests themselves?

Suggestion:

test_setup

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r3, 3 of 3 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @DvirYo-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 130 at r4 (raw file):

                    .next()
                    .await
                    .expect(&format!("Not recived transaction equals to {tx:?}"));

Suggestion:

received

[DvirYo-starkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @matan-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/lib.rs line 32 at r1 (raw file):

    loop {
        info!("Starting consensus for height {start_height}");
        let mut shc = SingleHeightConsensus::new(start_height, context.clone(), validator_id).await;

Done.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 2 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

?

This is on purpose. The name is getting too long, and the context is clear. I change this to end with this PR.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 57 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

Why 5k?

why not? It should be larger than any existing block and not be too high.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 100 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

And below

Done.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 124 at r2 (raw file):

                .expect("Get transactions from storage failed")
                .expect(&format!(
                    "Block in {height} was no found in storage although waiting for it"

Done.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 128 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

And below

Done.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 162 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

btw for validators, in M1 we just expect to pass a config on startup with a static list of validators.
proposer will just be something simple like self.config.validators[height % len]

Make this change after you run the consensus for the first time. It will make a problem when you don't have all the validators.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_consensus_context.rs line 195 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

This means that papyrus storage is behind the block that we want and so we will wait until the block can be found?

Done.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/src/papyrus_context_test.rs line 101 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

Doesn't mention network_receiver and is already pretty long.

I thought that convention was to put these types of functions above the tests themselves?

Done.

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @DvirYo-starkware)

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @DvirYo-starkware)

[yair-starkware]

Reviewed 5 of 7 files at r2, 2 of 2 files at r3, 3 of 3 files at r5, 2 of 3 files at r6, 1 of 1 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @DvirYo-starkware)