This section describes what the Application can expect from CometBFT.
The Tendermint consensus algorithm, currently adopted in CometBFT, 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:
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 its Response*
;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 its Response*
;FinalizeBlock
will be called exactly once at all processes, conveying the same prepared
block that all calls to PrepareProposal
and ProcessProposal
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 the consensus algorithm 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 straightforward, 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 in a precise way.
As mentioned in the Basic Concepts section, CometBFT acts as a client of ABCI++ and the Application acts as a server. Thus, it is up to CometBFT 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 [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
and Flush
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.ListSnapshots
and LoadSnapshotChunk
provide read-only access to the Application’s previously created
snapshots (if any), and help populate the parameters of OfferSnapshot
and ApplySnapshotChunk
at a process performing
state-sync while bootstrapping. Unlike ListSnapshots
and LoadSnapshotChunk
, both OfferSnapshot
and ApplySnapshotChunk
are included in the grammar.Finally, method Info
is a special case. The method’s purpose is three-fold, it can be used
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.
start = clean-start / recovery
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
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 via ApplySnapshotChunk
.
At the end of a successful attempt, CometBFT calls Info
to make sure the reconstructed state’s
AppHash matches the one in the block header at the corresponding height. Note that the state
of the application does not contain vote extensions itself. The application can rely on
CometBFT to ensure
the node has all the relevant data to proceed with the execution beyond this point.state-sync = *state-sync-attempt success-sync info state-sync-attempt = offer-snapshot *apply-chunk success-sync = offer-snapshot 1*apply-chunk
Info
to know from which height it needs to replay decisions
to the Application. After this, CometBFT enters consensus execution, first in replay mode and then
in normal mode.recovery = info consensus-exec
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
FinalizeBlock
, followed by a call to Commit
. 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).
When calling FinalizeBlock
with a block, the consensus algorithm run by CometBFT guarantees
that at least one non-byzantine validator has run ProcessProposal
on that block.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, CometBFT calls PrepareProposal
.
A successful execution of PrepareProposal
results in a proposal block being (i) signed and (ii) stored
(e.g., in stable storage).
A crash during this step will direct how the node proceeds the next time it is executed, for the same round, after restarted.
If it crashed before (i), then, during the recovery, PrepareProposal
will execute as if for the first time.
Following a crash between (i) and (ii) and in (the likely) case PrepareProposal
produces a different block,
the signing of this block will fail, which means that the new block will not be stored or broadcast.
If the crash happened after (ii), then signing fails but nothing happens to the stored block.
If a block was stored, it is sent to all validators, including the proposer.
Receiving a proposal block triggers ProcessProposal
with such a block.
Then, optionally, the Application is
asked to extend its vote for that round. Calls to VerifyVoteExtension
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 [process-proposal]] [extend] extend = *got-vote extend-vote *got-vote
ProcessProposal
at most once.
Under certain conditions, CometBFT may not call ProcessProposal
in a round;
see this section for an example.
At most one call to ExtendVote
may occur only after
ProcessProposal
is called. A number of calls to VerifyVoteExtension
can occur in any order
with respect to ProcessProposal
and ExtendVote
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]
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 advantage 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 0.17.0 to ABCI 2.0, 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 transactions
by copying over the transaction list passed in RequestPrepareProposal.txs
, in the same order.
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 set ResponseProcessProposal.status
to accept and return.ExtendVote
is to set ResponseExtendVote.extension
to an empty byte array and return.VerifyVoteExtension
must set ResponseVerifyVoteExtension.accept
to true if the extension is
an empty byte array and false otherwise, then return.FinalizeBlock
is to coalesce the implementation of methods BeginBlock
, DeliverTx
, and
EndBlock
. Legacy applications looking to reuse old code that implemented DeliverTx
should
wrap the legacy DeliverTx
logic in a loop that executes one transaction iteration per
transaction in RequestFinalizeBlock.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
.
In a manner transparent to the application, CometBFT ensures the node is provided with all the data it needs to participate in consensus.
In the case of recovering from a crash, or joining the network via state sync, CometBFT will make sure the node acquires the necessary vote extensions before switching to consensus.
If a node is already in consensus but falls behind, during catch-up, CometBFT will provide the node with
vote extensions from past heights by retrieving the extensions within ExtendedCommit
for old heights that it had previously stored.
We realize this is sub-optimal due to the increase in storage needed to store the extensions, we are
working on an optimization of this implementation which should alleviate this concern.
However, the application can use the existing retain_height
parameter to decide how much
history it wants to keep, just as is done with the block history. The network-wide implications
of the usage of retain_height
stay the same.
The decision to store
historical commits and potential optimizations, are discussed in detail in RFC-100
If applications upgrade to ABCI 2.0, CometBFT internally ensures that the application setup is reflected in its operation.
CometBFT retrieves from the application configuration the value of VoteExtensionsEnableHeight
( he,),
the height at which vote extensions are required for consensus to proceed, and uses it to determine the data it stores and data it sends to a peer that is catching up.
Namely, upon saving the block for a given height h in the block store at decision time
In the catch-up mechanism, when a node f realizes that another peer is at height hp, which is more than 2 heights behind height hf,