Skip to content

docs(timeline): explain the per-interval tick schedule - #1130

Merged
tcoratger merged 2 commits into
leanEthereum:mainfrom
tcoratger:audit-forks/doc-tick-interval-timing
Jun 17, 2026
Merged

docs(timeline): explain the per-interval tick schedule#1130
tcoratger merged 2 commits into
leanEthereum:mainfrom
tcoratger:audit-forks/doc-tick-interval-timing

Conversation

@tcoratger

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

What

Expands the docstring of the interval-tick method in the lstar timeline so it explains the five-interval slot schedule, not just that it "advances time and performs interval-specific actions".

The body now names each action point within a slot:

  • Interval 0: ingest the slot's pending votes once the proposal lands.
  • Interval 2: aggregators bundle the slot's votes into proofs and broadcast them.
  • Interval 3: advance the safe target from the latest votes for fast confirmation.
  • Interval 4: ingest the votes that accumulated through the rest of the slot.

Why

The match arms encode a consensus-critical schedule, but the one-line docstring gave no hint why there are five intervals, why aggregation sits at interval 2, or why fast confirmation sits at interval 3. The new prose states the rationale: aggregation waits until interval 2 so a block proposed at slot start has time to propagate and gather votes before bundling, and fast confirmation follows at interval 3 so the safe target reflects the freshest votes.

Docs-only change. No behavior change. just check passes.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

tcoratger and others added 2 commits June 17, 2026 16:05
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
# Conflicts:
#	src/lean_spec/spec/forks/lstar/timeline.py
@tcoratger
tcoratger merged commit 9f23975 into leanEthereum:main Jun 17, 2026
13 of 14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant