Skip to content

UTxO-HD for node 10.4 #1412

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

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Apr 16, 2025
Merged

UTxO-HD for node 10.4 #1412

merged 10 commits into from
Apr 16, 2025

Conversation

jasagredo
Copy link
Contributor

@jasagredo jasagredo commented Mar 5, 2025

Description

Implement UTxO-HD on top of the latest main.

Changelog fragments give a super-high-level description. Documentation on the website goes a bit more in depth.

@jasagredo jasagredo force-pushed the utxo-hd-10.4 branch 3 times, most recently from 7b51d07 to fcba3a3 Compare March 7, 2025 11:11
@jasagredo jasagredo force-pushed the aniketd/release-10-3 branch 15 times, most recently from e8675fc to 695c107 Compare March 25, 2025 12:18
Base automatically changed from aniketd/release-10-3 to main March 25, 2025 15:06
@jasagredo jasagredo changed the title DONOTMERGE rebased UTXO-HD UTxO-HD for node 10.4 Apr 4, 2025
@jasagredo jasagredo marked this pull request as ready for review April 4, 2025 15:26
@jasagredo jasagredo force-pushed the utxo-hd-10.4 branch 3 times, most recently from db8f8f5 to 620a677 Compare April 10, 2025 07:28
@jasagredo
Copy link
Contributor Author

The Check references CI job is expected to fail because we reference new pages in the website that still do not exist online.

Copy link
Member

@amesgen amesgen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Formally approving; the actual review work happened in #1267

jasagredo and others added 10 commits April 16, 2025 16:11
This commit puts together all the changes for UTxO-HD. It is annoying that it is
such a big commit but due to the numerous rebases, conflicts arose at each
single commit thus we reverted to put together everything in one commit to
minimize the conflict-resolving work.

For a super high-level description of UTxO-HD, the changelogs give brief
indications. For a more low-level description, check the new website documents.

This commit is the result of the joint effort by many people that are or were
part of the Consensus team and neighbour teams that made contributions be those
in design, testing or implementing some parts of UTxO-HD, who I would like to
acknowledge their participation by adding them as co-authors here, in no
particular order.

Co-authored-by: Joris Dral <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Alexander Esgen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Nick Frisby <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Damian Nadales <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Fraser Murray <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Georgy Lukyanov <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Renate Eilers <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Yogesh Sajanikar <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Bart Frenk <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Pawel Szulc <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Arnaud Bailly <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Douglas Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Duncan Coutts <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Alexey Kuleshevich <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jared Corduan <[email protected]>
- Re-format files
- Remove warning on unused import
- Update hackageNix in flake.lock
@jasagredo jasagredo enabled auto-merge April 16, 2025 14:12
@jasagredo jasagredo added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 16, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 9d41590 Apr 16, 2025
15 of 19 checks passed
@jasagredo jasagredo deleted the utxo-hd-10.4 branch April 16, 2025 15:19
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from 🏗 In progress to ✅ Done in Consensus Team Backlog Apr 16, 2025
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 19, 2025
Suppose that `s0 < s1 < s2` are slots with blocks in the ImmutableDB,
and no other slot `s` with `s0 < s < s2` has a block, and suppose that
we run `db-analyser --store-ledger s2`. It is now expected that we store
a ledger snapshot for slot `s2`, which was the case before #1412.
However:

- With `--v1-in-mem` or `--lmdb`, we store a ledger snapshot for slot
`s1`.
 - With `--v2-in-mem`, we store a ledger snapshot for slot `s0`.

This PR fixes two unrelated bugs causing this (one specific to the V2
LedgerDB), see the individual commits. Now, in all cases, we store a
ledger snapshot for slot `s2`.

Applied the `no changelog` label as only testing/internal code is
affected.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Status: ✅ Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants