-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
[Mainnet] Release v1.8.3 #11188
Merged
Merged
[Mainnet] Release v1.8.3 #11188
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
* add resumable replay verify if a partition failed * use gcs for reading replay-verify * [storage] replay verify last partition overtime * [storage] temporary rebalance * use gcloud command instead
Pretty straight forward, but I think our crypto apis are really not great. The amount of traits that should really be compressed down into a single trait for PublicKey, PrivateKey, and Signature. This would make maintaining and adding new libraries so much easier.
with this we can now send secp256k1 signed transactions to the blockchain... I'm going to do some code refactoring in authenticators and transactions before resuming the end-to-end testing and the feature gating of this feature.
This was adding extra code and adding complexity to what is already a complex space. If we aren't going to use the preimage, we have no need to write the code. We need to be more dilligent about removing this type of unnecessary code from the codebase, because it really impairs our ability to move fast.
* AuthenticationKey and Address are 1:1, so all this code is legacy based upon some weird goal of trying to compress the account address into an insecure size back in Libra. Even the authors of this code have since moved to 32-bytes in their own blockchain. * prefix is never used and removed. * derived_address -> account_address because there's no derivation it is literally 1:1
This is the implementation of AIP-52: https://github.com/aptos-foundation/AIPs/blob/main/aips/aip-52.md This AIP proposes to allow sponsored transactions, one in which the gas payer is not the primary signer of the transaction, to create accounts for the primary signer if it does not exist. Currently when submitting a sponsored transaction an account must first exist. This is an unnecessary friction for using gas fee payer accounts for new accounts. As it means that the gas fee payer solution must first submit an independent transaction to the blockchain. I also cleaned up the tests for fee payer since there were a lot, and they were excessively complex.
sometimes the client would like to send a transaction to a fee paying network without knowing who will actually pay for it... this PR makes the fee payer address optional by allowing signatures on Address::ZERO AIP forthcoming will update...
if the fee payer doesn't sign off on the fee payer, any signature can be used, which in turn means any signature can be used as the fee payer.
Introduces a way to encapsulate generic crypto as the sender of a transaction creating an indirection an allow us to have multi keys of differing types.
* We'll use a single feature flag, since it is a rather composite featuer and breaking it up into micro-features is a pain * Remove the unnecessary secp256k1 transaction authenticator Note, this is a devnet breaking change!
Test Plan: workflow on PR passes
Previous was 1.7.2 however 1.7.3 actually has an important fix
…0775) Tests show that overriding the socket options for send and recv buffer actually hurts performance (even with default linux kernel settings). Logically, this rolls back #4649 but keeping the configs and code around in case this or other socket options are revisited. New results: * `net_bench_two_region_env`: 800 KB/s -> 4 MB/s * `pfn_performance_with_realistic_env`: 4K -> 6K TPS
grao1991
requested review from
alinush,
a team,
msmouse,
lightmark,
JoshLind,
bchocho,
gregnazario,
banool,
0xmaayan,
0xmigo,
davidiw,
sasha8,
gelash,
zekun000,
ibalajiarun,
movekevin,
junkil-park and
wrwg
as code owners
December 4, 2023 21:36
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.
Description
Test Plan