order | title |
---|---|
4 |
Tendermint's expected behavior |
This section describes what the Application can expect from Tendermint.
The Tendermint consensus algorithm is designed to protect safety under any network conditions, as long as less than 1/3 of validators' voting power is byzantine. Most of the time, though, the network will behave synchronously, no process will fall behind, and there will be no byzantine process. The following describes what will happen during a block height h in these frequent, benign conditions:
- Tendermint will decide in round 0, for height h;
PrepareProposal
will be called exactly once at the proposer process of round 0, height h;ProcessProposal
will be called exactly once at all processes, and will return accept in itsResponse*
;ExtendVote
will be called exactly once at all processes;VerifyVoteExtension
will be called exactly n-1 times at each validator process, where n is the number of validators, and will always return accept in itsResponse*
;FinalizeBlock
will be called exactly once at all processes, conveying the same prepared block that all calls toPrepareProposal
andProcessProposal
had previously reported for height h; andCommit
will finally be called exactly once at all processes at the end of height h.
However, the Application logic must be ready to cope with any possible run of Tendermint for a given height, including bad periods (byzantine proposers, network being asynchronous). In these cases, the sequence of calls to ABCI++ methods may not be so straighforward, but the Application should still be able to handle them, e.g., without crashing. The purpose of this section is to define what these sequences look like an a precise way.
As mentioned in the Basic Concepts section, Tendermint acts as a client of ABCI++ and the Application acts as a server. Thus, it is up to Tendermint to determine when and in which order the different ABCI++ methods will be called. A well-written Application design should consider any of these possible sequences.
The following grammar, written in case-sensitive Augmented Backus–Naur form (ABNF, specified in IETF rfc7405), specifies all possible sequences of calls to ABCI++, taken by a correct process, across all heights from the genesis block, including recovery runs, from the point of view of the Application.
start = clean-start / recovery
clean-start = init-chain [state-sync] consensus-exec
state-sync = *state-sync-attempt success-sync info
state-sync-attempt = offer-snapshot *apply-chunk
success-sync = offer-snapshot 1*apply-chunk
recovery = info consensus-exec
consensus-exec = (inf)consensus-height
consensus-height = *consensus-round decide commit
consensus-round = proposer / non-proposer
proposer = *got-vote prepare-proposal *got-vote process-proposal [extend]
extend = *got-vote extend-vote *got-vote
non-proposer = *got-vote [process-proposal] [extend]
init-chain = %s"<InitChain>"
offer-snapshot = %s"<OfferSnapshot>"
apply-chunk = %s"<ApplySnapshotChunk>"
info = %s"<Info>"
prepare-proposal = %s"<PrepareProposal>"
process-proposal = %s"<ProcessProposal>"
extend-vote = %s"<ExtendVote>"
got-vote = %s"<VerifyVoteExtension>"
decide = %s"<FinalizeBlock>"
commit = %s"<Commit>"
We have kept some ABCI methods out of the grammar, in order to keep it as clear and concise as possible. A common reason for keeping all these methods out is that they all can be called at any point in a sequence defined by the grammar above. Other reasons depend on the method in question:
Echo
andFlush
are only used for debugging purposes. Further, their handling by the Application should be trivial.CheckTx
is detached from the main method call sequence that drives block execution.Query
provides read-only access to the current Application state, so handling it should also be independent from block execution.- Similarly,
ListSnapshots
andLoadSnapshotChunk
provide read-only access to the Application's previously created snapshots (if any), and help populate the parameters ofOfferSnapshot
andApplySnapshotChunk
at a process performing state-sync while bootstrapping. UnlikeListSnapshots
andLoadSnapshotChunk
, bothOfferSnapshot
andApplySnapshotChunk
are included in the grammar.
Finally, method Info
is a special case. The method's purpose is three-fold, it can be used
- as part of handling an RPC call from an external client,
- as a handshake between Tendermint and the Application upon recovery to check whether any blocks need to be replayed, and
- at the end of state-sync to verify that the correct state has been reached.
We have left Info
's first purpose out of the grammar for the same reasons as all the others: it can happen
at any time, and has nothing to do with the block execution sequence. The second and third purposes, on the other
hand, are present in the grammar.
Let us now examine the grammar line by line, providing further details.
- When a process starts, it may do so for the first time or after a crash (it is recovering).
start = clean-start / recovery
- If the process is starting from scratch, Tendermint first calls
InitChain
, then it may optionally start a state-sync mechanism to catch up with other processes. Finally, it enters normal consensus execution.
clean-start = init-chain [state-sync] consensus-exec
- In state-sync mode, Tendermint makes one or more attempts at synchronizing the Application's state.
At the beginning of each attempt, it offers the Application a snapshot found at another process.
If the Application accepts the snapshot, a sequence of calls to
ApplySnapshotChunk
method follow to provide the Application with all the snapshots needed, in order to reconstruct the state locally. A successful attempt must provide at least one chunk viaApplySnapshotChunk
. At the end of a successful attempt, Tendermint callsInfo
to make sure the recontructed state's AppHash matches the one in the block header at the corresponding height.
state-sync = *state-sync-attempt success-sync info state-sync-attempt = offer-snapshot *apply-chunk success-sync = offer-snapshot 1*apply-chunk
- In recovery mode, Tendermint first calls
Info
to know from which height it needs to replay decisions to the Application. After this, Tendermint enters nomal consensus execution.
recovery = info consensus-exec
- The non-terminal
consensus-exec
is a key point in this grammar. It is an infinite sequence of consensus heights. The grammar is thus an omega-grammar, since it produces infinite sequences of terminals (i.e., the API calls).
consensus-exec = (inf)consensus-height
- A consensus height consists of zero or more rounds before deciding and executing via a call to
FinalizeBlock
, followed by a call toCommit
. In each round, the sequence of method calls depends on whether the local process is the proposer or not. Note that, if a height contains zero rounds, this means the process is replaying an already decided value (catch-up mode).
consensus-height = *consensus-round decide commit consensus-round = proposer / non-proposer
- For every round, if the local process is the proposer of the current round, Tendermint starts by
calling
PrepareProposal
, followed byProcessProposal
. Then, optionally, the Application is asked to extend its vote for that round. Calls toVerifyVoteExtension
can come at any time: the local process may be slightly late in the current round, or votes may come from a future round of this height.
proposer = *got-vote prepare-proposal *got-vote process-proposal [extend] extend = *got-vote extend-vote *got-vote
- Also for every round, if the local process is not the proposer of the current round, Tendermint
will call
ProcessProposal
at most once. At most one call toExtendVote
may occur only afterProcessProposal
is called. A number of calls toVerifyVoteExtension
can occur in any order with respect toProcessProposal
andExtendVote
throughout the round. The reasons are the same as above, namely, the process running slightly late in the current round, or votes from future rounds of this height received.
non-proposer = *got-vote [process-proposal] [extend]
- Finally, the grammar describes all its terminal symbols, which denote the different ABCI++ method calls that may appear in a sequence.
init-chain = %s"<InitChain>" offer-snapshot = %s"<OfferSnapshot>" apply-chunk = %s"<ApplySnapshotChunk>" info = %s"<Info>" prepare-proposal = %s"<PrepareProposal>" process-proposal = %s"<ProcessProposal>" extend-vote = %s"<ExtendVote>" got-vote = %s"<VerifyVoteExtension>" decide = %s"<FinalizeBlock>" commit = %s"<Commit>"
In some cases, an existing Application using the legacy ABCI may need to be adapted to work with ABCI++ with as minimal changes as possible. In this case, of course, ABCI++ will not provide any advange with respect to the existing implementation, but will keep the same guarantees already provided by ABCI. Here is how ABCI++ methods should be implemented.
First of all, all the methods that did not change from ABCI to ABCI++, namely Echo
, Flush
, Info
, InitChain
,
Query
, CheckTx
, ListSnapshots
, LoadSnapshotChunk
, OfferSnapshot
, and ApplySnapshotChunk
, do not need
to undergo any changes in their implementation.
As for the new methods:
PrepareProposal
must create a list of TxRecord each containing a transaction passed inRequestPrepareProposal.txs
, in the same other. The fieldaction
must be set toUNMODIFIED
for all TxRecord elements in the list. The Application must check whether the size of all transactions exceeds the byte limit (RequestPrepareProposal.max_tx_bytes
). If so, the Application must remove transactions at the end of the list until the total byte size is at or below the limit.ProcessProposal
must setResponseProcessProposal.accept
to true and return.ExtendVote
is to setResponseExtendVote.extension
to an empty byte array and return.VerifyVoteExtension
must setResponseVerifyVoteExtension.accept
to true if the extension is an empty byte array and false otherwise, then return.FinalizeBlock
is to coalesce the implementation of methodsBeginBlock
,DeliverTx
, andEndBlock
. Legacy applications looking to reuse old code that implementedDeliverTx
should wrap the legacyDeliverTx
logic in a loop that executes one transaction iteration per transaction inRequestFinalizeBlock.tx
.
Finally, Commit
, which is kept in ABCI++, no longer returns the AppHash
. It is now up to
FinalizeBlock
to do so. Thus, a slight refactoring of the old Commit
implementation will be
needed to move the return of AppHash
to FinalizeBlock
.