-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 689
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
Make parachain template great again (and async backing ready) #4295
Merged
s0me0ne-unkn0wn
merged 3 commits into
master
from
s0me0ne/async-backing-ready-parachain-template
May 2, 2024
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ | ||
title: "Make parachain template async backing ready" | ||
|
||
doc: | ||
- audience: Node Dev | ||
description: | | ||
Promotes the parachain template (both node and runtime) to use async backing APIs so that | ||
developers starting a new project from the template could get async backing integrated out | ||
of the box. | ||
|
||
crates: | ||
- name: parachain-template-node | ||
bump: major | ||
- name: parachain-template-runtime | ||
bump: major |
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we go ahead and bump it to 2000? All the mainnets and Rococo are already using 2.5 sec backing timeout. It's still 2 seconds for Westend.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am wondering if we should even increase it to 2.5s.
If I see it correctly we are subtracting 1/3 of the time specified here for "evaluation and block finalization": https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/substrate/client/basic-authorship/src/basic_authorship.rs#L291
So that means of the 2s we will hit the timeout for extrinsic application after ~1.3s. However the runtime specified a ref time weight of 2s. So even with a correctly benchmarked runtime we could hit this limit easily, assuming reference hardware. Probably this works well in reality because our reference hardware is not super fast and most collators outperform it?
For backing a higher authoring should not be problem, because the ref_time will still limit the execution time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We're still trying to keep a gap between backing timeout and authoring duration as the backing has bigger overhead, and that's why we bumped the backing timeout in the first place -- with both being 2 sec, backers were timing out on Versi sometimes.