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

chore(e2e): move block production monitor before any transactions #3132

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 12, 2024

Conversation

gartnera
Copy link
Member

@gartnera gartnera commented Nov 8, 2024

Description

The block production monitor should cause the e2e tests to fail fast even if consensus fails immediately at genesis.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Introduced enhanced monitoring for block production during the genesis phase, allowing for quicker detection of consensus failures.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved responsiveness of consensus issue detection without impacting the immediate exit of tests.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 8, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a new line in the localE2ETest function within local.go, adding a call to monitorBlockProductionExit(ctx, conf) executed in a goroutine. This adjustment aims to enhance the monitoring of block production during the genesis phase, allowing for quicker detection of consensus failures. The previous monitoring implementation has been removed, indicating a shift in approach, while the overall structure of the function remains largely intact.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
cmd/zetae2e/local/local.go Added a call to monitorBlockProductionExit(ctx, conf) in a goroutine within the localE2ETest function. Removed previous monitoring implementation.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

UPGRADE_LIGHT_TESTS

Suggested reviewers

  • fbac
  • skosito
  • kingpinXD
  • ws4charlie
  • lumtis
  • swift1337

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>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code 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 testing code 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 gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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 using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

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.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
cmd/zetae2e/local/local.go (2)

185-189: Strategic placement of block production monitor.

The placement of the monitor before any transactions is well-thought-out, allowing for quick detection of consensus failures during genesis. The comment clearly explains why it's not part of the error group.

Consider enhancing the monitoring setup with:

  1. Error logging strategy
  2. Graceful shutdown handling
-	go monitorBlockProductionExit(ctx, conf)
+	go func() {
+		if err := monitorBlockProductionExit(ctx, conf); err != nil {
+			logger.Error("Block production monitor failed: %v", err)
+			cancel() // Trigger graceful shutdown
+		}
+	}()

185-189: Well-architected placement for resource optimization.

The monitor's placement before resource-intensive operations (emissions pool funding, keygen, TSS setup) ensures optimal resource utilization by failing fast on consensus issues. This prevents partial or inconsistent state in the test environment.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 13cfffe and db626d7.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • cmd/zetae2e/local/local.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
cmd/zetae2e/local/local.go (1)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Go code, point out issues relative to principles of clean code, expressiveness, and performance.

🔇 Additional comments (1)
cmd/zetae2e/local/local.go (1)

185-189: Verify monitor implementation details.

Please ensure that monitorBlockProductionExit properly:

  1. Respects context cancellation
  2. Has appropriate timeout mechanisms
  3. Implements robust error handling
✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the monitor implementation to verify its robustness.


Monitor implementation is robust and well-structured

The implementation demonstrates production-grade practices with:

  • Proper context cancellation handling via <-ctx.Done()
  • Clear timeout mechanism using time.After(4 * time.Second)
  • Comprehensive error handling for RPC client setup, WebSocket events, and block monitoring
  • Clean shutdown through context cancellation
  • Appropriate error propagation with detailed error messages

The monitor successfully fulfills its role of detecting consensus failures by exiting when blocks aren't produced within the expected timeframe.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for the monitor implementation to verify its robustness
echo "Searching for monitor implementation..."
rg -A 10 "func monitorBlockProductionExit"

# Check for context handling patterns
echo "Verifying context handling..."
ast-grep --pattern 'select {
  case $_ = <-ctx.Done():
    $$$
}'

Length of output: 1177


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the full implementation of monitorBlockProduction
echo "Checking monitorBlockProduction implementation..."
rg -A 30 "func monitorBlockProduction"

# Check for timeout/ticker patterns
echo "Checking timeout patterns..."
rg -A 5 "time.NewTicker|time.After" "cmd/zetae2e/local/monitor_block_production.go"

# Check error handling patterns
echo "Checking error handling..."
rg "if err .= .+" "cmd/zetae2e/local/monitor_block_production.go"

Length of output: 3807

@lumtis lumtis added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 12, 2024
Merged via the queue into develop with commit edebb7a Nov 12, 2024
44 checks passed
@lumtis lumtis deleted the e2e-block-production-monitor-early branch November 12, 2024 08:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
breaking:cli no-changelog Skip changelog CI check
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants