Skip to content

Conversation

@ganeshvanahalli
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 1.18343% with 334 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 28.76%. Comparing base (c9c2421) to head (af7ef6d).

Additional details and impacted files
@@                          Coverage Diff                          @@
##           fetching-melobjectsfrom-preimages    #4152      +/-   ##
=====================================================================
- Coverage                              28.90%   28.76%   -0.15%     
=====================================================================
  Files                                    469      472       +3     
  Lines                                  56613    56883     +270     
=====================================================================
- Hits                                   16365    16361       -4     
- Misses                                 37269    37542     +273     
- Partials                                2979     2980       +1     

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 17, 2025

❌ 55 Tests Failed:

Tests completed Failed Passed Skipped
4500 55 4445 0
View the top 3 failed tests by shortest run time
Test_parseBatchesFromBlock/OK
Stack Traces | 0.000s run time
=== RUN   Test_parseBatchesFromBlock/OK
    batch_lookup_test.go:262: 
        	Error Trace:	/home/runner/work/nitro/nitro/arbnode/mel/extraction/batch_lookup_test.go:262
        	Error:      	Received unexpected error:
        	            	error recording relevant logs: logs for blockHash: 0x67451ac456a41d420db79abb1acaff079bf22f190cb63475dca64fe7809bbcb6 and txIndex: 0 not found
        	Test:       	Test_parseBatchesFromBlock/OK
--- FAIL: Test_parseBatchesFromBlock/OK (0.00s)
Test_parseBatchesFromBlock
Stack Traces | 0.000s run time
=== RUN   Test_parseBatchesFromBlock
--- FAIL: Test_parseBatchesFromBlock (0.00s)
Test_parseBatchesFromBlock_outOfOrderBatches
Stack Traces | 0.000s run time
=== RUN   Test_parseBatchesFromBlock_outOfOrderBatches
    batch_lookup_test.go:343: 
        	Error Trace:	/home/runner/work/nitro/nitro/arbnode/mel/extraction/batch_lookup_test.go:343
        	Error:      	Error "error recording relevant logs: logs for blockHash: 0xbb0ae5c8239c67ba4e26fa95fa89c3bb0c814dd9f4298ddeeddaec6734a8b86c and txIndex: 0 not found" does not contain "sequencer batches out of order"
        	Test:       	Test_parseBatchesFromBlock_outOfOrderBatches
--- FAIL: Test_parseBatchesFromBlock_outOfOrderBatches (0.00s)

📣 Thoughts on this report? Let Codecov know! | Powered by Codecov


func (mv *MELValidator) Start(ctx context.Context) {
mv.CallIteratively(func(ctx context.Context) time.Duration {
latestStaked, err := mv.rollup.LatestStakedAssertion(&bind.CallOpts{}, mv.boldStakerAddr)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will only work if the current node's mv.boldStakerAddress is the one that is staked on the chain (needs $10 million USD). We should instead fetch the latest assertion we locally agree with. I think we need to expose a helper method for this, and I can do this once I return from holiday

if state.Hash() != wantState.Hash() {
return nil, fmt.Errorf("calculated MEL state hash in recording mode doesn't match the one computed in native mode, parentchainBlocknumber: %d", i)
}
if state.MsgCount >= toValidateMsgExtractionCount {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Very nice!

melValidator := staker.NewMELValidator(builder.L2.ConsensusNode.ArbDB, builder.L1.Client, builder.L2.ConsensusNode.MessageExtractor, blobReaderRegistry)
extractedMsgCount, err := builder.L2.ConsensusNode.TxStreamer.GetMessageCount()
Require(t, err)
entry, err := melValidator.CreateNextValidationEntry(ctx, startBlock, uint64(extractedMsgCount))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To test out multiple validations, we'll probably need to setup assertion posting...I can also help with this once Im back

@ganeshvanahalli ganeshvanahalli force-pushed the mel-validator-createvalidationentry branch from 5cfa36b to 2cea9a2 Compare January 5, 2026 06:30
@ganeshvanahalli ganeshvanahalli changed the base branch from raul/mel-inbox-reading to fetching-melobjectsfrom-preimages January 5, 2026 06:31
Base automatically changed from fetching-melobjectsfrom-preimages to raul/mel-tx-record January 6, 2026 09:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants