Skip to content

Commit 99e99fd

Browse files
authored
docs(sequencer-client): rewrite top-level and timing READMEs (#23149)
## Motivation The top-level `sequencer-client/README.md` was years out of date — it still referred to single-block-per-slot building and made no mention of proposer pipelining or the multi-block checkpoint model. The timing-model README still documented both pipelined and non-pipelined scheduling even though the non-pipelined mode is about to be removed. New contributors (human or AI) lacked the context they need to make changes to block building. ## Approach Rewrote the top-level README from scratch following the package's `readme-writer` guidelines: slots / blocks / checkpoints, proposed vs checkpointed chain, an architecture diagram, the `Sequencer` work loop, `CheckpointProposalJob` lifecycle, per-block loop pseudocode, the `SequencerPublisher` Multicall3 bundling and `sendRequestsAt` semantics, events, configuration reference, and failure modes. Trimmed `src/sequencer/README.md` to cover only the pipelined timing model with formulas grounded in `PipelinedCheckpointTimingModel` and a corrected 72 s / 8 s walkthrough. Ran `/codex` for a critical review and fixed all flagged issues (last-sub-slot-is-not-cooldown, event-emit timing, config env-var names, attestation-deadline nuance, `insufficient-valid-txs` handling, publisher `preCheck` semantics). ## Changes - **sequencer-client**: Replaced `README.md` with an architecture-first rewrite covering pipelining (build slot vs target slot, depth bound of 2, parent-invalidation discard), the per-slot job lifecycle, the publisher's Multicall3 flow, and the full config reference. - **sequencer-client (sequencer)**: Replaced `src/sequencer/README.md` with a pipelining-only timing model. Documents `timeReservedAtEnd`, `maxNumberOfBlocks`, per-state deadlines, proposer-vs-committee parallel timeline, and timing-variation handling.
1 parent 69bbcde commit 99e99fd

2 files changed

Lines changed: 428 additions & 540 deletions

File tree

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)