staking: enshrine consensus key indexing requirement in unit-test #4148
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
erwanor
added
the
A-staking
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
This PR adds a unit-test to the staking component to capture that we must "never"1 delete a
comet verification key -> identity keyentry from the consensus key index. This is because we always want to be able to do byzantine evidence attribution even if a validator has rotated the consensus key that they used to equivocate.Keeping old entries around enables the evidence processor to resolve a consensus key to a persistent validator identity, and slash it / record a penalty.
More context in: #4144
Checklist before requesting a review
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:
Footnotes
fwiw - this is probably fine to prune after one or two unbonding windows have elapsed ↩