-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
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
bug: v018 delegation rewards error still persists #274
Comments
Resolution Steps
Step 1: Determine Root of Issue- there are 2 delegations with 0 shares: This is confirmed by iterating through all delegations for a given validator, and asserting that the delegation is greater than the minimum decimal value. If not, it is 0, and it can safely be removed from the store. - there are two validators missing a slash event: 2 slashing events tracked by the distribution store (distribution uses staking hooks for this functionality, which were broken during v018 upgrade) the distribution invariant logic Using Custom ExportUsing a custom upgradehandler logic that can be imported throughout the app will allow us to simulate & verify the functions of the logic prior to the upgrade. The logic to resolve this bug is required to:
Reproduce In Testnet EnvironmentSince the store is modified from the mainnet state, when using the in-place-testnet logic, we need to ensure that we modify delegations such that delegations to our new testnet validator incur the same issue being experienced on mainnet. To do this, we will have to:
Step 2: Upgrade Handler Tests
|
after investigating, it appears these two validators are the only validators containing a historical reward reference count of 2. further investigation shows that by manually setting a slashing event for these two operators allows us to pass crisis invariant checks. this lines up with the hypothesis that distribution calculations are inaccurate as there is a missing slashing event in the store for these two validators. |
two validators delegations still incur the bug present for v018:
bitsongvaloper1qxw4fjged2xve8ez7nu779tm8ejw92rv0vcuqr
bitsongvaloper1xnc32z84cc9vwftvv4w0v02a2slug3tjt6qyct
afaik, it is relevant due to the introduction of the bug described here: #260
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: