-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 234
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
feat: extra check on time #8204
Conversation
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. Join @LHerskind and the rest of your teammates on Graphite |
Benchmark resultsMetrics with a significant change:
Detailed resultsAll benchmarks are run on txs on the This benchmark source data is available in JSON format on S3 here. Proof generationEach column represents the number of threads used in proof generation.
L2 block published to L1Each column represents the number of txs on an L2 block published to L1.
L2 chain processingEach column represents the number of blocks on the L2 chain where each block has 8 txs.
Circuits statsStats on running time and I/O sizes collected for every kernel circuit run across all benchmarks.
Stats on running time collected for app circuits
AVM SimulationTime to simulate various public functions in the AVM.
Public DB AccessTime to access various public DBs.
Tree insertion statsThe duration to insert a fixed batch of leaves into each tree type.
MiscellaneousTransaction sizes based on how many contract classes are registered in the tx.
Transaction size based on fee payment method | Metric | | |
l1-contracts/src/core/Rollup.sol
Outdated
@@ -609,6 +609,16 @@ contract Rollup is Leonidas, IRollup, ITestRollup { | |||
revert Errors.Rollup__InvalidTimestamp(timestamp, _header.globalVariables.timestamp); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
if (timestamp > block.timestamp) { | |||
// @note If you are hitting this error, it is likely because you the chain have a blocktime that differs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
driveby nit: 'you the chain'
bb12a4c
to
b21bcaa
Compare
c40163d
to
4c856ea
Compare
b21bcaa
to
e561992
Compare
4c856ea
to
46af0ff
Compare
5ab61a1
to
eaf2271
Compare
eaf2271
to
3801ba0
Compare
Closing this, handled by #8148. |
Pull request was closed
Doing some cleanup after #7850, looking to address the issue of #8153 and #8110. - #8153 - Addressed by including a "watcher" as part of the setup, which will push us to the next slot if there is already a block proposed for the current one. - #8110 - Updates the logic in the contract such that we can deal with "simulating" in the future, and use this from the sequencer. Gets rid of the `time_traveler` from the l1-publisher, now lives in the watcher which is used in tests. Issues related to slot duration is still to be addressed, so the name of this branch got slightly funky. Taking over the extra check added in #8204 since i) they are related and ii) the pain of going through CI made me do it.
Doing some cleanup after #7850, looking to address the issue of #8153 and #8110. - #8153 - Addressed by including a "watcher" as part of the setup, which will push us to the next slot if there is already a block proposed for the current one. - #8110 - Updates the logic in the contract such that we can deal with "simulating" in the future, and use this from the sequencer. Gets rid of the `time_traveler` from the l1-publisher, now lives in the watcher which is used in tests. Issues related to slot duration is still to be addressed, so the name of this branch got slightly funky. Taking over the extra check added in #8204 since i) they are related and ii) the pain of going through CI made me do it.
Adds a check that the timestamp is not in the future.