Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @vedant-asati, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request significantly enhances the observability of the Peer Data Availability Sampling (PeerDAS) system by refining its metrics collection. The changes introduce precise measurements for various stages of data column and blob processing, from reconstruction and computation times to different verification steps. This will allow for a more accurate understanding of performance bottlenecks and the overall efficiency of the PeerDAS implementation, ensuring better monitoring and debugging capabilities. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
|
idk why |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces several new metrics for PeerDAS and refactors some existing ones. The changes are generally good and improve observability. I've identified a few areas where code clarity could be improved by avoiding variable shadowing, and one instance of potentially inconsistent metric usage. My suggestions focus on making the code more readable and maintainable.
| const timer = this?.metrics?.peerDas.dataColumnSidecarComputationTime.startTimer(); | ||
| const cells = blobsBundle.blobs.map((blob) => kzg.computeCells(blob)); | ||
| timer?.(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The metric dataColumnSidecarComputationTime is used here to time blobsBundle.blobs.map((blob) => kzg.computeCells(blob)). The help text for this metric is "Time taken to compute data column sidecars, including cells and inclusion proof". This seems inconsistent as only cells are being computed here. In other parts of the codebase (e.g., util/execution.ts), this metric is used to time the entire sidecar computation process. Consider using a more specific metric for cell computation or clarifying the scope of this metric to ensure consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cell proofs come from EL, inclusion proofs may be computed afterwards in the near scope.
We are only timing cell computation here.
This behaviour is not fully consistent with what the spec says.
packages/beacon-node/src/chain/produceBlock/produceBlockBody.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
wip #8850