related to: #7274 and #7275
Still somewhat uncertain on two things that I'd appreciate more feedback on:
1. The optional temporary local overrides. Perhaps this is superfluous and we can simply make the transition without the override?
2. If this set of parameters seems to be large enough to allow application developers to create the chains they want but not so large as to be needlessly complex.
* update the proposer-based timestamps spec per discussion with @cason
* add vote to list of changed structs
* sentence fix
* clarify crypto sig logic update
* language updates per feedback from @cason
* fix POL < 0 wording
* update timely description for non-polka
While discussing a question about the indexing interface (#7044), we found some
confusion about the intent of the design decisions in ADR 065.
Based on discussion with the original authors of the ADR, this commit adds some
language to the Decisions section to spell out the intentions more clearly, and
to call out future work that this ADR did not explicitly decide about.
Update the schema and implementation of the Postgres event indexer to improve
certain types of queries against the index. These changes address the use cases
raised by #6843, and are partly inspired by the prototype schema in that issue.
In the old schema, events were flattened, making it difficult to find all the events
associated with a particular block or transaction. In addition, events with no key/value
attributes were entirely lost, since entries were generated only for attributes.
To address these issues, this new schema records blocks, transactions, events,
and attributes in separate tables, and provides views that join these tables to
give a more convenient query surface for block and transaction events.
- All events for a given block can be queried from the `block_events` view.
- All events for a given transaction can be queried from the `tx_events` view.
- Multiple events for the same key can be indexed for both blocks and transactions.
The tests have been reworked, but all of the existing test cases for the old schema
still pass with the new implementation. Various other minor cleanups are included,
ADR-065 is also updated to reflect the updated schema.
This ADR restores a variation of the old Request for Comments documentation
that we previously used. The proposal differs from the original formulation,
and does not replace ADRs.
Per conversations earlier today, we'll consider all proposed implementation changes part of the ADR process rather than the RFC process (which will remain, for now, on the spec; this may get incorporated instead into the burgeoning "CIPS" process).
This change renames RFC 1 to ADR 66, leaving space for the not-yet-merged ADR 65.
* add time warping lunatic attack test
* create too high and connecton refused errors and add to the light client provider
* add height check to provider
* introduce block lag
* add detection logic for processing forward lunatic attack
* add node-side verification logic
* clean up tests and formatting
* update adr's
* update testing
* fix fetching the latest block
* format
* update changelog
* implement suggestions
* modify ADR's
* format
* clean up node evidence verification
## Description
- separate docs related to running nodes into the nodes dir.
- keep old files but dont display them
- bring over debugging like a pro blog
Closes: #XXX
## Description
These changes are up for discussion.
The current ADR template leaves a lot of room for interpretation and we currently do not have implementation level specs. This change to the ADR template is meant to solve both of these pitfalls.
Thank you to @tessr for providing an amazing template to follow. I only took a few things from it but we can add more if people would like more detail.
Closes: #XXX
## Description
This pr adds missing adr numbers based on what is in #2313
This pr adds empty templates that should later be filled when the time comes to do the implementation.
there are still missing numbers, we can either fill them in when we write more ADRs or not backfill numbers and only go forwards.
Closes: #2313
## Description
This adr is meant to weight the pros and cons of gRPC and JSON-RPC. It is fairly incomplete on the JSON-RPC side.
EDIT: Thank you to erik on filling out the pros and cons!!
Work Towards: #3367
M. J. Fromberger
William Banfield
Sam Kleinman
Marko
Callum Waters
JayT106
Aleksandr Bezobchuk
Tess Rinearson
Erik Grinaker
dongsam
John Adler
Anton Kaliaev