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

fix: Do not call Remove during Walk #19833

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 24, 2024
Merged

fix: Do not call Remove during Walk #19833

merged 3 commits into from
Mar 24, 2024

Conversation

facundomedica
Copy link
Member

@facundomedica facundomedica commented Mar 22, 2024

Description

As it is not safe to perform deletions during iteration, we should remove these from the SDK.

We either:

  • store the keys to perform the deletion after we finished iterating.
  • delete using the Clear method to which we pass a range.

We are still doing it in a couple of places:

  • UnbondAllMatureValidators: calls DeleteValidatorQueueTimeSlice
  • x/gov’s EndBlocker

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Enhanced removal of expired allowances and vote calculation in governance for improved efficiency.
    • Simplified deletion process for missed block bitmaps in slashing logic.
    • Improved clearing of index keys and handling of matured rotated keys in staking.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Mar 22, 2024

Walkthrough

The recent updates across various modules aim to enhance data removal processes. By incorporating a method to gather keys for removal before deletion, the system ensures more effective and accurate removal operations. Furthermore, improvements like simplifying deletion logic for missed block bitmaps and utilizing Clear for clearing index keys demonstrate a concerted effort to streamline data handling efficiency throughout the system.

Changes

Files Change Summary
x/feegrant/keeper/keeper.go, x/gov/keeper/tally.go Implemented a new approach to collect keys before removal for accurate and efficient deletions.
x/slashing/keeper/signing_info.go Simplified deletion logic by directly clearing the ValidatorMissedBlockBitmap.
x/staking/keeper/cons_pubkey.go Enhanced index key deletion by switching to Clear method and improved key removal efficiency in specific functions.

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit-tests for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml

Commits Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 632c3f1 and 4f9320c.
Files selected for processing (4)
  • x/feegrant/keeper/keeper.go (2 hunks)
  • x/gov/keeper/tally.go (2 hunks)
  • x/slashing/keeper/signing_info.go (1 hunks)
  • x/staking/keeper/cons_pubkey.go (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 7
x/staking/keeper/cons_pubkey.go (2)
  • 205-205: The change to use Clear for deletion instead of iterating with Walk is a good improvement in terms of efficiency and simplicity. Ensure that the range defined for deletion accurately targets the intended keys.
  • 214-230: Collecting keys before deletion is a good practice to avoid issues during iteration. Ensure that all keys are correctly identified and added to the keysToRemove list before proceeding with deletion.
x/slashing/keeper/signing_info.go (1)
  • 185-185: The change to directly clear the ValidatorMissedBlockBitmap instead of using a walk and remove operation simplifies the deletion process and improves efficiency. Ensure that the range defined for deletion accurately targets the intended keys.
x/feegrant/keeper/keeper.go (1)
  • 302-316: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [305-332]

Collecting keys before deletion in the RemoveExpiredAllowances function is a good practice to avoid issues during iteration. Ensure that all keys are correctly identified and added to the keysToRemove list before proceeding with deletion.

x/gov/keeper/tally.go (3)
  • 250-250: The introduction of votesToRemove to store votes for later removal is a good practice to avoid modifying a collection while iterating over it. This change aligns with the PR's objective to address unsafe deletions during iteration and enhances the safety and stability of the SDK.
  • 296-297: Appending votes to votesToRemove for later removal is correctly implemented. This approach ensures that the iteration over votes is not compromised by immediate deletions, which could lead to unexpected behavior or errors.
  • 303-307: Iterating over votesToRemove to remove votes from the store is correctly implemented. This deferred deletion strategy is a safer alternative to direct removal during iteration, effectively addressing the critical issue the PR aims to solve.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml

Commits Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4f9320c and d2e0c27.
Files selected for processing (1)
  • CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
CHANGELOG.md (1)
  • 101-101: The changelog entry for PR fix: Do not call Remove during Walk #19833 is clear and follows the established format. However, to enhance clarity, consider specifying the modules or areas of the SDK affected by this change, as this would provide readers with a better understanding of the impact of the fix.

Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm! great that none of those got released and most of collections migration happened in v0.51.

@julienrbrt julienrbrt added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 24, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit ea7bdd1 Mar 24, 2024
63 of 64 checks passed
@julienrbrt julienrbrt deleted the facu/fix-walk-remove branch March 24, 2024 19:00
meetrick pushed a commit to meetrick/cosmos-sdk that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <alexanderbez@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants