chore(consensus): allow running multiple simulations of consensus

[asmaastarkware]

This change is 

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @asmaastarkware and @dan-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/run_consensus.py line 99 at r1 (raw file):

def build_node(base_layer_node_url, temp_dir, num_validators, i):

    monitoring_gateway_server_port = find_free_port()

Why the empty line?

Suggestion:

def build_node(base_layer_node_url, temp_dir, num_validators, i):
    monitoring_gateway_server_port = find_free_port()

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/run_consensus.py line 100 at r1 (raw file):

    monitoring_gateway_server_port = find_free_port()
    tcp_port = BOOTNODE_TCP_PORT if i == 1 else find_free_port()

Let's create a variable so the code is self documenting (use below also)

Suggestion:

    is_bootstrap = (i == 1)
    tcp_port = BOOTNODE_TCP_PORT if is_bootstrap else find_free_port()

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/run_consensus.py line 116 at r1 (raw file):

    if i == 1:
        specific_command = f"--network.secret_key {SECRET_KEY} "

let's just create command not common_command and do command += XXX

Code quote:

        specific_command = f"--network.secret_key {SECRET_KEY} "

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/run_consensus.py line 151 at r1 (raw file):

    # Ensure validator 0 runs last
    nodes.append(build_node(base_layer_node_url, temp_dir, num_validators, 0))

We already have the comment at the top of the function, so let's keep these terse.

Suggestion:

    nodes.append(build_node(base_layer_node_url, temp_dir, num_validators, 1))  # Bootstrap

    for i in range(2, num_validators):
        nodes.append(build_node(base_layer_node_url, temp_dir, num_validators, i))

    nodes.append(build_node(base_layer_node_url, temp_dir, num_validators, 0))  # Proposer

[asmaastarkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dan-starkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/run_consensus.py line 99 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

Why the empty line?

Done.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/run_consensus.py line 100 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

Let's create a variable so the code is self documenting (use below also)

Done.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/run_consensus.py line 116 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

let's just create command not common_command and do command += XXX

Done.

---

crates/sequencing/papyrus_consensus/run_consensus.py line 151 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

We already have the comment at the top of the function, so let's keep these terse.

Done.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.33%. Comparing base (5c821dc) to head (e6716d4).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2227   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.33%   66.33%           
=======================================
  Files         139      139           
  Lines       18346    18346           
  Branches    18346    18346           
=======================================
  Hits        12169    12169           
  Misses       4884     4884           
  Partials     1293     1293           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @dan-starkware)

The base branch was changed.

[matan-starkware]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @dan-starkware)