feat: add versioned and backwards-compatible server version to block proposal #5803
+208
−8
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
kantai
previously approved these changes
Feb 5, 2025
obycode
reviewed
Feb 5, 2025
obycode
reviewed
Feb 6, 2025
Co-authored-by: Brice <[email protected]>
obycode
previously approved these changes
Feb 6, 2025
|
Changelog conflict fixed, requesting re-approvals :) |
obycode
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2025
jferrant
approved these changes
Feb 10, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR introduces a pattern that we introduced previously to
BlockResponse, which allows us to add new fields to theBlockProposalstruct without worrying about backwards/forwards issues with serialization.Critically, this PR only works because there is no place where we deserialize a
Vec<BlockProposal>(just like we didn't/don't deserializeVec<BlockResponse>). The only time we do anything like that is when deserializing StackerDB chunks, but the fact thatStackerDbChunk"wraps" these structs is what makes this OK.The reason we need to add this pattern is because Vec-based deserialization will run into issues, because "old" versions of the code won't fully consume each item's bytes.
This new pattern does consume all of the item's bytes, even if the item was serialized using future code.