apollo_consensus_orchestrator: split consensus config into static and dynamic configs

[guy-starkware]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[guy-starkware]

• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: use the config manager client to update consensus context config #11015
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: add helper func to test sending proposal to validate #11163
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: fix test util to be able to use number_of_times>1 #11162
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: split consensus config into static and dynamic configs #10963 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main-v0.14.1-committer

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[ShahakShama]

@ShahakShama reviewed 10 files and made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guy-starkware).

---

a discussion (no related file):
I assume this isn't the full feature. What happens if this PR is merged and the next PRs aren't merged and someone changes the dynamic config?
If the answer is that nothing will happen, I think we should consider entering all PRs as one PR (we can have a stack of PRs, but merge it from the top)

[guy-starkware]

@guy-starkware made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ShahakShama).

---

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

I assume this isn't the full feature. What happens if this PR is merged and the next PRs aren't merged and someone changes the dynamic config?
If the answer is that nothing will happen, I think we should consider entering all PRs as one PR (we can have a stack of PRs, but merge it from the top)

I don't know if merging from the top will make sense or not. But certainly we'd want to merge them very close together (as in, after the whole feature is reviewed)

[dafnamatsry]

@dafnamatsry reviewed 10 files and all commit messages, and made 2 comments.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @guy-starkware and @ShahakShama).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 757 at r1 (raw file):

                .config
                .dynamic_config
                .override_l2_gas_price_fri

Was it a bug that we didn't take the override_ value here?

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator_config/src/config.rs line 136 at r1 (raw file):

    /// block hash to be available. The remaining time is used to build the proposal.
    /// for the retrospective block hash to be available. The remaining time is used to build the
    /// proposal.

Suggestion:

    /// The fraction (0.0 - 1.0) of the total build time allocated to waiting
    /// for the retrospective block hash to be available. The remaining time is used to build the
    /// proposal.

[guy-starkware]

@guy-starkware made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dafnamatsry and @ShahakShama).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 757 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dafnamatsry wrote…

Was it a bug that we didn't take the override_ value here?

I think it might be.

[guy-starkware]

@guy-starkware made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dafnamatsry and @ShahakShama).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator_config/src/config.rs line 136 at r1 (raw file):

    /// block hash to be available. The remaining time is used to build the proposal.
    /// for the retrospective block hash to be available. The remaining time is used to build the
    /// proposal.

Done.

[dafnamatsry]

@dafnamatsry reviewed 1 file and resolved 2 discussions.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed (commit messages unreviewed), 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ShahakShama).

[dafnamatsry]

@dafnamatsry reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ShahakShama).

[ShahakShama]

@ShahakShama reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, and made 2 comments.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guy-starkware).

---

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, guy-starkware wrote…

I don't know if merging from the top will make sense or not. But certainly we'd want to merge them very close together (as in, after the whole feature is reviewed)

IMO we should merge from the top

[guy-starkware]

@guy-starkware reviewed 18 files and all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guy-starkware).