12Gy...agKW
wishes to retain at rank1
2d 26mins ago
0

Argument-0010: Retention at Rank I
Report Date 2026/10/17
Submitted by Damilare Akinlose
Sponsored by Oliver Tale-Yazdi

Member details

  • Matrix username: @dharjeezy/:matrix.org
  • Polkadot address: 12GyGD3QhT4i2JJpNzvMf96sxxBLWymz4RdGCxRH5Rj5agKW
  • Current rank: 1
  • Date of initial induction: 2024-04-29
  • Date of last report: 2026/07/19
  • Link to last report: Evaluations#327
  • Subsystems developed/maintained:
    • Nodes (SDK, Omni-Node, RPCs, Light-clients, tooling): fork-aware transaction pool
    • Runtimes (FRAME, APIs, integrations): try_state invariants across FRAME pallets
    • Nodes (Networking, Security): litep2p

Reporting period

  • Start date: 2026/07/20
  • End date: 2026/10/17

Argument

I am applying for Rank I retention.

During this period, my work spanned three subsystems: Nodes (SDK), Runtimes (FRAME) and Nodes (Networking). On the node side, I started working on the fork-aware transaction pool (fatxpool). I merged a refactor that replaces TransactionPoolWrapper with a trait object and drops the phantom Client type parameter from FullClientTransactionPool, and opened a fix so transactions from retracted blocks reach the mempool. I continued the try_state invariant initiative (issue #239), merging the hooks for pallet-grandpa and pallet-core-fellowship and opening eight more. In litep2p, I opened a PR making Kademlia serve multiple requests on one inbound substream, as the spec requires.

Below is a summary of my key contributions:

Reliable & Resilient

fatxpool: Add Transactions from Retracted Blocks to the Mempool

I opened PR #13482 to fix how the fork-aware transaction pool handles transactions from retracted blocks. Before, they were only resubmitted to the new view and never reached the mempool, so when the pool was at its limits they could be pushed out by mempool transactions whatever their priority. They are now added to the mempool as well, reusing the priority obtained while resubmitting them, and go through the usual replacement path when the mempool is full. A higher priority retracted transaction evicts lower ones, and a lower priority one is dropped. The PR also resubmits retracted transactions when the enacted block already has a view, which previously lost them for that view and its descendants. It closes issue #6831 and is open and under review.

Introduce try_state Hook for Pallet GRANDPA

The try_state hook for pallet-grandpa, open at the time of my last report, was merged in PR #12422. It defines and asserts the invariants of the pallet's authority-set and session state.

Introduce try_state Hook for Pallet Core Fellowship

The try_state hook for pallet-core-fellowship, also open at the time of my last report, was merged in PR #12419. It checks that member ranking and parameter storage stay consistent.

Introduce try_state Hook for Pallet Broker

I opened PR #13206 adding a try_state hook to pallet-broker, the pallet behind Coretime sales. The invariants it asserts:

  • the stored configuration passes the same validity check configure applies
  • sale info is consistent: cores sold never exceed cores offered, and a sale that offered cores always has a sellout price
  • every region and every InstaPoolContribution covers at least one timeslice
  • Partial and Complete potential renewals match how much of the core they actually assign
  • pool history never strands revenue in the pallet's pot
  • AutoRenewals stays sorted by core index, which its binary search relies on

The PR is open and under review.

Introduce try_state Hooks for NIS, Offences, Node Authorization, MMR, Transaction Storage, Uniques, and NFTs Pallets

I opened seven more try_state PRs, each defining and asserting the storage invariants that hold for its pallet:

All seven are open and under review.

Flexible & Developer-Focused

fatxpool: Hold the Transaction Pool as a Trait Object Instead of a Wrapper

I merged PR #12845 (+374/-545), which closes issue #5489. TransactionPoolWrapper was a struct wrapping a boxed transaction pool, there only to give it a sized type, and it needed ~190 lines forwarding every trait method to the inner box. TransactionPoolHandle is now a type alias for the trait object itself, so the forwarding layer is gone.

The PR also folds in issue #12942, which I opened after finding that the Client type parameter on FullClientTransactionPool was phantom: all three of its associated types resolve without it. Removing it also removed the BlockIdTo and TaggedTransactionQueue client bounds that existed only to build a pool. Those bounds are gone from build_network, build_network_advanced, spawn_tasks, gen_rpc_module and the cumulus build_network. The service parameter types now accept ?Sized pools, so an alternative pool implementation can define its own error and transaction types. The change touches the service builders across Substrate, Polkadot, Cumulus and the omni-node.

Interoperable & Compatible

litep2p: Serve Multiple Kademlia Requests on One Inbound Substream

I opened PR #647, which closes issue #467. The Kademlia spec requires implementations to handle further requests on a substream a peer has already used. litep2p was closing the substream after the first response, so go-libp2p peers kept losing their cached stream mid-conversation. Now, once the response is written, substreams opened by the remote go back to reading, with the existing 15s read timeout as the idle window, and ADD_PROVIDER no longer drops the substream just because the spec gives it no reply. The PR also stops treating a failure on one of those substreams as the peer disconnecting. Before, whenever an inbound substream timed out, every outbound query in flight with that peer failed. This improves interoperability with other libp2p implementations. The PR is open and under review.

Voting record

Ranks Activity thresholds Agreement thresholds Member's voting activities Comments
I 90% N/A I have voted on 0 out of 0 referenda in which I was eligible to vote (i.e undefined% voting activity). Out of xx referenda in which members of higher ranks were in complete agreement, I have voted in line with the consensus x times (i.e undefined% voting agreement).
II 80% N/A
III 70% 100%
IV 60% 90%
V 50% 80%
VI 40% 70%

Misc

  • Question(s):
  • Concern(s):
  • Comment(s):
Reply
Up
Share
#667·
Comments