Initial implementation of mockamoto stack-node mode #4001
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #4001 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 0.16% 0.16% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 350 351 +1
Lines 292190 292666 +476
==========================================
Hits 469 469
- Misses 291721 292197 +476
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
Does this mean the blocks include the new |
Yes, it does include the new transaction type. Once the mocknet node integrates with the chain coordinator work (which this PR doesn't yet), then yeah, the mocknet node is a good place to start integrating the new tx type. Until then, it won't emit events (events are emitted by the chain coordinator). |
|
@kantai : Is this still a draft? Can I request reviews? |
kantai
changed the title
|
Yes its ready for reviews. This PR is ultimately pretty minor and will just be a good place for merging in the work from Jude's coordinator PR. |
|
Would having more reviewers help or is that not a bottleneck right now? I understand that only people currently on the Nakamoto WG are probably best for reviewing but just wondering if reviewing is something that needs more attention or not. |
| let coinbase_tx = coinbase_tx_signer.get_tx().unwrap(); | ||
|
|
||
| let parent_block_id = StacksBlockId::new(&chain_tip_ch, &chain_tip_bh); | ||
| let tenure_change_tx_payload = TransactionPayload::TenureChange(TenureChangePayload { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a comment here? I guess you're just including a tenure change in every block to test some more paths?
| Ok(new_snapshot) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub struct MockamotoNode { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a comment on this struct, or a top-level commenting explaining what Mockamoto does and why it is useful? It doesn't need to be anything to complicated, since this is just temporary, but I think this will be helpful for others using it during development.
| clarity_instance: &'a mut ClarityInstance, | ||
| sortition_dbconn: &'b dyn SortitionDBRef, | ||
| pox_constants: &PoxConstants, | ||
| chain_tip: &StacksHeaderInfo, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you help me understand why replacing chain_tip with parent_stacks_height and parent_burn_height is required? This seems needless to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It reduces the amount that needs to be mocked: the chain_tip argument is only used for obtaining the parent stacks height and parent burn height (for epoch checks, mostly). It also makes writing unit tests easier. An argument like chain_tip which includes a bunch of information that the function doesn't use confuses the interface.
|
Merging -- if we want to change the |
|
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. |
This PR implements a first version of mockamoto. It has several deficiencies at the moment, but those could be sorted in separate PRs (which is, perhaps, an argument for leaving those to a separate PR):
If those don't get covered by this PR, I'll open issues for them.
This is still a draft because right now, there's no associated unit tests -- it may also be worthwhile to just include some of the above features in this PR.