## Proposed Changes
With proposer boosting implemented (#2822) we have an opportunity to re-org out late blocks.
This PR adds three flags to the BN to control this behaviour:
* `--disable-proposer-reorgs`: turn aggressive re-orging off (it's on by default).
* `--proposer-reorg-threshold N`: attempt to orphan blocks with less than N% of the committee vote. If this parameter isn't set then N defaults to 20% when the feature is enabled.
* `--proposer-reorg-epochs-since-finalization N`: only attempt to re-org late blocks when the number of epochs since finalization is less than or equal to N. The default is 2 epochs, meaning re-orgs will only be attempted when the chain is finalizing optimally.
For safety Lighthouse will only attempt a re-org under very specific conditions:
1. The block being proposed is 1 slot after the canonical head, and the canonical head is 1 slot after its parent. i.e. at slot `n + 1` rather than building on the block from slot `n` we build on the block from slot `n - 1`.
2. The current canonical head received less than N% of the committee vote. N should be set depending on the proposer boost fraction itself, the fraction of the network that is believed to be applying it, and the size of the largest entity that could be hoarding votes.
3. The current canonical head arrived after the attestation deadline from our perspective. This condition was only added to support suppression of forkchoiceUpdated messages, but makes intuitive sense.
4. The block is being proposed in the first 2 seconds of the slot. This gives it time to propagate and receive the proposer boost.
## Additional Info
For the initial idea and background, see: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2353#issuecomment-950238004
There is also a specification for this feature here: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3034
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: pawan <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
# Description
Since the `TaskExecutor` currently requires a `Weak<Runtime>`, it's impossible to use it in an async test where the `Runtime` is created outside our scope. Whilst we *could* create a new `Runtime` instance inside the async test, dropping that `Runtime` would cause a panic (you can't drop a `Runtime` in an async context).
To address this issue, this PR creates the `enum Handle`, which supports either:
- A `Weak<Runtime>` (for use in our production code)
- A `Handle` to a runtime (for use in testing)
In theory, there should be no change to the behaviour of our production code (beyond some slightly different descriptions in HTTP 500 errors), or even our tests. If there is no change, you might ask *"why bother?"*. There are two PRs (#3070 and #3175) that are waiting on these fixes to introduce some new tests. Since we've added the EL to the `BeaconChain` (for the merge), we are now doing more async stuff in tests.
I've also added a `RuntimeExecutor` to the `BeaconChainTestHarness`. Whilst that's not immediately useful, it will become useful in the near future with all the new async testing.
