Mining Analysis

[temaniarpit27]

This PR will introduce the metrics in the mining module and bor consensus module via opentelemetry

[linear[bot]]

POS-505 Opentelemetry for Bor

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 56.84% // Head: 56.87% // Increases project coverage by +0.03% :tada:

Coverage data is based on head (c07ed79) compared to base (2a677a5). Patch coverage: 59.52% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #429      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    56.84%   56.87%   +0.03%     
===========================================
  Files          607      606       -1     
  Lines        69993    70121     +128     
===========================================
+ Hits         39786    39880      +94     
- Misses       26801    26837      +36     
+ Partials      3406     3404       -2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
consensus/clique/clique.go	40.35% <ø> (ø)
consensus/ethash/consensus.go	40.21% <ø> (ø)
consensus/ethash/sealer.go	80.09% <0.00%> (ø)
core/blockchain.go	59.46% <ø> (-0.09%)	:arrow_down:
core/state_transition.go	89.10% <ø> (ø)
core/types/transaction.go	61.94% <0.00%> (-0.77%)	:arrow_down:
internal/cli/flagset/flagset.go	35.77% <0.00%> (-1.02%)	:arrow_down:
internal/cli/server/server.go	30.89% <0.00%> (-0.36%)	:arrow_down:
consensus/bor/bor.go	7.83% <1.96%> (-0.39%)	:arrow_down:
miner/worker.go	73.89% <82.63%> (+2.94%)	:arrow_up:
... and 23 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[manav2401]

@JekaMas One of the test case re data race of sealer module is failing for macos-11. We did try retrying it multiple times but no luck. Is it okay to skip this particular test or it seems to be an important one? Also, any possible reasons for the failure you might be aware of?

[JekaMas]

@manav2401 I believe now we have everything to merge the branch into develop. Could you resolve conflicts, fix TODOes if needed and merge it?

[temaniarpit27]

@manav2401 Merged develop Please deploy on 1 machine for final testing before merging as I resolved some conflicts

[temaniarpit27]

@JekaMas @ssandeep should we merge this?

[ssandeep]

Do you foresee any major conflicts when we merge upstream changes in future?

[JekaMas]

Do you foresee any major conflicts when we merge upstream changes in future?

We can just try ) we didn't merge Geth upstream for a while, so we can do that into this branch(making a new merge branch) and see. However I believe, it won't be that hard.

[temaniarpit27]

I think we should create a new task for this and do this from develop instead of this branch

[JekaMas]

Hmm... In both cases we'll increase our tech debt, because we'd need to support at least 1 long living branch. I'd suggest to finish mining analysis, merge it to develop, then try to merge upstream and if any issues, then revert some of the changes from mining analysis (I believe we won't face with something serious, but still).

[ssandeep]

@JekaMas , makes sense. Let's do that.

[temaniarpit27]

@JekaMas i have reverted your commit anon-91 seems fine after deploying the PR