**Update:** Pushed additional changes based on the review comments.
**This pull request fixes various spelling mistakes in this
repository.**
Most of the changes are contained in the first **3** commits:
- `Fix spelling mistakes in comments and docs`
- `Fix spelling mistakes in test names`
- `Fix spelling mistakes in error messages, panic messages, logs and
tracing`
Other source code spelling mistakes are separated into individual
commits for easier reviewing:
- `Fix the spelling of 'authority'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'REASONABLE_HEADERS_IN_JUSTIFICATION_ANCESTRY'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'prev_enqueud_messages'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'endpoint'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'children'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSiblingSovereignAccount'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSudoAccount'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'insufficient'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'PalletXcmExtrinsicsBenchmark'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'subtracted'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'CandidatePendingAvailability'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'exclusive'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'until'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'discriminator'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'nonexistent'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'subsystem'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'indices'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'committed'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'topology'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'response'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'beneficiary'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'formatted'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'UNKNOWN_PROOF_REQUEST'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'succeeded'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'reopened'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'proposer'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'InstantiationNonce'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'depositor'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'expiration'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'phantom'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'AggregatedKeyValue'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'randomness'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'defendant'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'AquaticMammal'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'transactions'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'PassingTracingSubscriber'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'TxSignaturePayload'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'versioning'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'descendant'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'overridden'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'network'`
Let me know if this structure is adequate.
**Note:** The usage of the words `Merkle`, `Merkelize`, `Merklization`,
`Merkelization`, `Merkleization`, is somewhat inconsistent but I left it
as it is.
~~**Note:** In some places the term `Receival` is used to refer to
message reception, IMO `Reception` is the correct word here, but I left
it as it is.~~
~~**Note:** In some places the term `Overlayed` is used instead of the
more acceptable version `Overlaid` but I also left it as it is.~~
~~**Note:** In some places the term `Applyable` is used instead of the
correct version `Applicable` but I also left it as it is.~~
**Note:** Some usage of British vs American english e.g. `judgement` vs
`judgment`, `initialise` vs `initialize`, `optimise` vs `optimize` etc.
are both present in different places, but I suppose that's
understandable given the number of contributors.
~~**Note:** There is a spelling mistake in `.github/CODEOWNERS` but it
triggers errors in CI when I make changes to it, so I left it as it
is.~~
This PR removes sp-std crate from substrate/primitives sub-directories.
For now crates that have `pub use` of sp-std or export macros that would
necessitate users of the macros to `extern crate alloc` have been
excluded from this PR.
There should be no breaking changes in this PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: Koute <koute@users.noreply.github.com>
* Change copyright year to 2023 from 2022
* Fix incorrect update of copyright year
* Remove years from copy right header
* Fix remaining files
* Fix typo in a header and remove update-copyright.sh
* Run cargo fmt on the whole code base
* Second run
* Add CI check
* Fix compilation
* More unnecessary braces
* Handle weights
* Use --all
* Use correct attributes...
* Fix UI tests
* AHHHHHHHHH
* 🤦
* Docs
* Fix compilation
* 🤷
* Please stop
* 🤦 x 2
* More
* make rustfmt.toml consistent with polkadot
Co-authored-by: André Silva <andrerfosilva@gmail.com>
* Add PJR challenge functions
- Updates the PJR check to return a counterexample if one exists
- Adds functions to cheaply check counterexamples
This is in support of off-chain PJR challenges: if a miner discovers
that an accepted election solution does not satisfy PJR, it will be
eligible for substantial rewards. This helps ensure that validator
elections have an absolute quality floor, so even if someone manages
to censor well-behaved solutions to give themselves unfair representation,
we can catch them in the act and penalize them.
* counterexample -> counter_example
* reorganize: high -> low abstraction
* reorganize challenges high -> low abstraction
* add note justifying linear search
* Simplify max_pre_score validation
Co-authored-by: Kian Paimani <5588131+kianenigma@users.noreply.github.com>
* add minor test of pjr challenge validation
Co-authored-by: Kian Paimani <5588131+kianenigma@users.noreply.github.com>
* Apply.
* get rid of glob import
* use meaningful generic type name
* pjr_check operates on `Supports` struct used elsewhere
* improve algorithmic complexity of `prepare_pjr_input`
* fix rustdoc warnings
* improve module docs
* typo
* simplify debug assertion
* add test finding the phase-change threshold value for a constructed scenario
* add more threshold scenarios to disambiguate plausible interpretations
* add link to npos paper reference
* docs: staked_assignment -> supports
Co-authored-by: Kian Paimani <5588131+kianenigma@users.noreply.github.com>
* add utility method for generating npos inputs
* add a fuzzer which asserts that all unbalanced seq_phragmen are PJR
Note that this currently fails. I hope that this can be rectified
by calculating the threshold instead of choosing some arbitrary number.
* assert in all cases, not just debug
* leverage a native solution to choose candidates
* use existing helper methods
* add pjr-check and incorporate into the fuzzer
We should probably have one of the W3F people look at this to ensure
we're not misconstruing any definitions, but this seems like a
fairly straightforward implementation.
* fix compilation errors
* Enable manually setting iteration parameters in single run.
This gives us the ability to reproducably extract cases where
honggfuzz has discovered a panic. For example:
$ cargo run --release --bin phragmen_pjr -- --candidates 569 --voters 100
Tue 23 Feb 2021 11:23:39 AM CET
Compiling bitflags v1.2.1
Compiling unicode-width v0.1.8
Compiling unicode-segmentation v1.7.1
Compiling ansi_term v0.11.0
Compiling strsim v0.8.0
Compiling vec_map v0.8.2
Compiling proc-macro-error-attr v1.0.4
Compiling proc-macro-error v1.0.4
Compiling textwrap v0.11.0
Compiling atty v0.2.14
Compiling heck v0.3.2
Compiling clap v2.33.3
Compiling structopt-derive v0.4.14
Compiling structopt v0.3.21
Compiling sp-npos-elections-fuzzer v2.0.0-alpha.5 (/home/coriolinus/Documents/Projects/paritytech/substrate/primitives/npos-elections/fuzzer)
Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 6.15s
Running `/home/coriolinus/Documents/Projects/paritytech/substrate/target/release/phragmen_pjr -c 569 -v 100`
thread 'main' panicked at 'unbalanced sequential phragmen must satisfy PJR', primitives/npos-elections/fuzzer/src/phragmen_pjr.rs:133:5
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
This is still not adequate proof that seq_phragmen is broken; it could
very well be that our PJR checker is doing the wrong thing, or we've
somehow missed a parameter of interest. Still, it's concerning.
* update comment verbiage for accuracy
* it is valid in PJR for an elected candidate to have 0 support
* Fix phragmen_pjr fuzzer
It turns out that the fundamental problem causing previous implementations
of the fuzzer to fail wasn't in `seq_phragmen` _or_ in `pjr_check`: it was
in the rounding errors introduced in the various conversions between the
internal data representation and the external one.
Fixing the fuzzer is then simply an issue of using the internal representation
and staying in that representation. However, that leaves the issue that
`seq_phragmen` occasionally produces an output which is technically not
PJR due to rounding errors. In the future we will need to add some kind of
"close-enough" threshold. However, that is explicitly out of scope of
this PR.
* restart ci; it appears to be stalled
* use necessary import for no-std
* use a more realistic distribution of voters and candidates
This isn't ideal; more realistic numbers would be about twice these.
However, either case generation or voting has nonlinear execution
time, and doubling these values brings iteration time from ~20s to
~180s. Fuzzing 6x as fast should make up for fuzzing cases half the size.
* identify specifically which PJR check may fail
* move candidate collection comment into correct place
* standard_threshold: use a calculation method which cannot overflow
* Apply suggestions from code review (update comments)
Co-authored-by: Kian Paimani <5588131+kianenigma@users.noreply.github.com>
* clarify the effectiveness bounds for t-pjr check
* how to spell "committee"
* reorganize: high -> low abstraction
* ensure standard threshold calc cannot panic
Co-authored-by: Kian Paimani <5588131+kianenigma@users.noreply.github.com>
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Shawn Tabrizi <shawntabrizi@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: kianenigma <kian.peymani@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Kian Paimani <5588131+kianenigma@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Shawn Tabrizi <shawntabrizi@gmail.com>
Dcompoze