• Peter Goodspeed-Niklaus's avatar
    implement provisioner (#1473) · a39d8803
    Peter Goodspeed-Niklaus authored
    * sketch out provisioner basics
    * handle provisionable data
    * stub out select_inherent_data
    * split runtime APIs into sub-chapters to improve linkability
    * explain SignedAvailabilityBitfield semantics
    * add internal link to further documentation
    * some more work figuring out how the provisioner can do its thing
    * fix broken link
    * don't import enum variants where it's one layer deep
    * make request_availability_cores a free fn in util
    * document more precisely what should happen on block production
    * finish first-draft implementation of provisioner
    * start working on the full and proper backed candidate selection rule
    * Pass number of block under construction via RequestInherentData
    * Revert "Pass number of block under construction via RequestInherentData"
    This reverts commit 850fe62c.
    That initially looked like the better approach--it spent the time
    budget for fetching the block number in the proposer, instead of
    the provisioner, and that felt more appropriate--but it turns out
    not to be obvious how to get the block number of the block under
    construction from within the proposer. The Chain API may be less
    ideal, but it should be easier to implement.
    * wip: get the block under production from the Chain API
    * add ChainApiMessage to AllMessages
    * don't break the run loop if a provisionable data channel closes
    * clone only those backed candidates which are coherent
    * propagate chain_api subsystem through various locations
    * add delegated_subsystem! macro to ease delegating subsystems
    Unfortunately, it doesn't work right:
    error[E0446]: private type `CandidateBackingJob` in public interface
       --> node/core/backing/src/lib.rs:775:1
    86  | struct CandidateBackingJob {
        | - `CandidateBackingJob` declared as private
    775 | delegated_subsystem!(CandidateBackingJob as CandidateBackingSubsystem);
        | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ can't leak private type
    I'm not sure precisely what's going wrong, here; I suspect the problem is
    the use of `$job as JobTrait>::RunArgs` and `::ToJob`; the failure would be
    that it's not reifying the types to verify that the actual types are public,
    but instead referring to them via `CandidateBackingJob`, which is in fact private;
    that privacy is the point.
    Going to see if I can generic my way out of this, but we may be headed for a
    quick revert here.
    * fix delegated_subsystem
    The invocation is a bit more verbose than I'd prefer, but it's also
    more explicit about what types need to be public. I'll take it as a win.
    * add provisioning subsystem; reduce public interface of provisioner
    * deny missing docs in provisioner
    * refactor core selection per code review suggestion
    This is twice as much code when measured by line, but IMO it is
    in fact somewhat clearer to read, so overall a win.
    Also adds an improved rule for selecting availability bitfields,
    which (unlike the previous implementation) guarantees that the
    appropriate postconditions hold there.
    * fix bad merge double-declaration
    * update guide with (hopefully) complete provisioner candidate selection procedure
    * clarify candidate selection algorithm
    * Revert "clarify candidate selection algorithm"
    This reverts commit c68a02ac.
    * clarify candidate selection algorithm
    * update provisioner to implement candidate selection per the guide
    * add test that no more than one bitfield is selected per validator
    * add test that each selected bitfield corresponds to an occupied core
    * add test that more set bits win conflicts
    * add macro for specializing runtime requests; specailize all runtime requests
    * add tests harness for select_candidates tests
    * add first real select_candidates test, fix test_harness
    * add mock overseer and test that success is possible
    * add test that the candidate selection algorithm picks the right ones
    * make candidate selection test somewhat more stringent