|
|
@ -4,19 +4,20 @@ Please ensure you've first read the spec for [ABCI Methods and Types](abci.md) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here we cover the following components of ABCI applications: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [State](#state) - the interplay between ABCI connections and application state |
|
|
|
- [Connection State](#state) - the interplay between ABCI connections and application state |
|
|
|
and the differences between `CheckTx` and `DeliverTx`. |
|
|
|
- [Transaction Results](#transaction-results) - rules around transaction |
|
|
|
results and validity |
|
|
|
- [Validator Set Updates](#validator-updates) - how validator sets are |
|
|
|
changed during `InitChain` and `EndBlock` |
|
|
|
- [Query](#query) - standards for using the `Query` method |
|
|
|
- [Query](#query) - standards for using the `Query` method and proofs about the |
|
|
|
application state |
|
|
|
- [Crash Recovery](#crash-recovery) - handshake protocol to synchronize |
|
|
|
Tendermint and the application on startup. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since Tendermint maintains multiple concurrent ABCI connections, it is typical |
|
|
|
Since Tendermint maintains three concurrent ABCI connections, it is typical |
|
|
|
for an application to maintain a distinct state for each, and for the states to |
|
|
|
be synchronized during `Commit`. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -96,7 +97,7 @@ though see issues |
|
|
|
[#1861](https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/issues/1861), |
|
|
|
[#2299](https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/issues/2299) and |
|
|
|
[#2310](https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/issues/2310) for how this may |
|
|
|
change. |
|
|
|
soon change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### CheckTx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -180,11 +181,46 @@ Note the updates returned in block `H` will only take effect at block `H+2`. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Query |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Query is a generic message type with lots of flexibility to enable diverse sets |
|
|
|
of queries from applications. Tendermint has no requirements from the Query |
|
|
|
message for normal operation - that is, the ABCI app developer need not implement Query functionality if they do not wish too. |
|
|
|
That said, Tendermint makes a number of queries to support some optional |
|
|
|
features. These are: |
|
|
|
Query is a generic method with lots of flexibility to enable diverse sets |
|
|
|
of queries on application state. Tendermint makes use of Query to filter new peers |
|
|
|
based on ID and IP, and exposes Query to the user over RPC. |
|
|
|
Note that calls to Query are not replicated across nodes, but rather query the |
|
|
|
local node's state - hence they may provide stale reads. For reads that require |
|
|
|
consensus, a transaction is required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most important use of Query is to return Merkle proofs of the application state at some height |
|
|
|
that can be used for efficient application-specific lite-clients. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note Tendermint has technically no requirements from the Query |
|
|
|
message for normal operation - that is, the ABCI app developer need not implement |
|
|
|
Query functionality if they do not wish too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Query Proofs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Tendermint block header includes a number of hashes, each providing an |
|
|
|
anchor for some type of proof about the blockchain. The `ValidatorsHash` enables |
|
|
|
quick verification of the validator set, the `DataHash` gives quick |
|
|
|
verification of the transactions included in the block, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `AppHash` is unique in that it is application specific, and allows for |
|
|
|
application-specific Merkle proofs about the state of the application. |
|
|
|
While some applications keep all relevant state in the transactions themselves |
|
|
|
(like Bitcoin and its UTXOs), others maintain a separated state that is |
|
|
|
computed deterministically *from* transactions, but is not contained directly in |
|
|
|
the transactions themselves (like Ethereum contracts and accounts). |
|
|
|
For such applications, the `AppHash` provides a much more efficient way to verify lite-client proofs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABCI applications can take advantage of more efficient lite-client proofs for |
|
|
|
their state as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- return the Merkle root of the deterministic application state in |
|
|
|
`ResponseCommit.Data`. |
|
|
|
- it will be included as the `AppHash` in the next block. |
|
|
|
- return efficient Merkle proofs about that application state in `ResponseQuery.Proof` |
|
|
|
that can be verified using the `AppHash` of the corresponding block. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For instance, this allows an application's lite-client to verify proofs of |
|
|
|
absence in the application state, something which is much less efficient to do using the block hash. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Peer Filtering |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|