apollo_consensus_orchestrator: introduce BTreeMap-keyed SNIP-35 fee_proposals window

[sirandreww-starkware]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[sirandreww-starkware]

• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: add SNIP-35 integration TODO doc #13982
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: tmp dirty tests for SNIP-35 (NOT FOR MERGE) #13857
• apollo_l1_gas_price,apollo_l1_gas_price_config: move exchange_rate_decimals const to config #13881
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: add SNIP-35 proposer-validator symmetry tests #13856
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: add SNIP-35 module edge case tests #13855
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: add SNIP-35 e2e test #13821
• apollo_consensus_manager: wire STRK/USD oracle into consensus manager #13820
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: add SNIP-35 fee_proposal validation #13819
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: include fee_proposal_fri in proposal commitment hash #13949
• apollo_starknet_client: read fee_proposal_fri from feeder gateway #13986
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: wire SNIP-35 fee_proposal into cende blob #13985
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: wire SNIP-35 fee_proposal into build_proposal #13818
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator,apollo_consensus_manager: move SNIP-35 bootstrap to pre-consensus #14061
• apollo_consensus_orchestrator: introduce BTreeMap-keyed SNIP-35 fee_proposals window #14083 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Touches consensus fee-proposal tracking used for SNIP-35 gas pricing; incorrect window contents or pruning could skew fee_actual and affect block building/validation behavior across nodes.

Overview
Switches the SNIP-35 fee_proposals_window from a FIFO VecDeque to a BTreeMap<BlockNumber, Option<GasPrice>>, explicitly recording a (possibly None) fee proposal per height (including pre-V0_14_3).

Adds deterministic window maintenance: bootstrapping from state sync now records entries by height, window pruning is performed on each new height via a cutoff split, and sync/decision paths consistently call record_fee_proposal. Includes new unit tests covering prune behavior (drop below cutoff, empty, saturating underflow, no-op).

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a6145b3. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[matanl-starkware]

@matanl-starkware reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, and made 2 comments.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on ShahakShama and sirandreww-starkware).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 302 at r2 (raw file):

            u64::try_from(FEE_PROPOSAL_WINDOW_SIZE).expect("FEE_PROPOSAL_WINDOW_SIZE fits in u64");
        let cutoff = BlockNumber(current_height.0.saturating_sub(window_size));
        self.fee_proposals_window = self.fee_proposals_window.split_off(&cutoff);

Please add some tests to verify only what you wanted is left in the tree after the split.

Code quote:

self.fee_proposals_window.split_off(&cutoff);

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 332 at r2 (raw file):

                        "SNIP-35 bootstrap failed at block {h}: {e:?}. Window has {} / \
                         {FEE_PROPOSAL_WINDOW_SIZE} entries.",
                        self.fee_proposals_window.len()

Consider fixing this, to count only non-None entries

Code quote:

self.fee_proposals_window.len()

[ShahakShama]

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 332 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matanl-starkware (Matan Lior) wrote…

Consider fixing this, to count only non-None entries

IMO you shouldn't fix this. None entry is a valid entry for a 0.14.2 block

[ShahakShama]

@ShahakShama reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, and made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on matanl-starkware and sirandreww-starkware).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 302 at r2 (raw file):

            u64::try_from(FEE_PROPOSAL_WINDOW_SIZE).expect("FEE_PROPOSAL_WINDOW_SIZE fits in u64");
        let cutoff = BlockNumber(current_height.0.saturating_sub(window_size));
        self.fee_proposals_window = self.fee_proposals_window.split_off(&cutoff);

Please add a comment stating if split_off is inclusive or exclusive (and explain the meaning of inclusive/exclusive 😅 )

[ShahakShama]

@ShahakShama made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on matanl-starkware and sirandreww-starkware).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 302 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matanl-starkware (Matan Lior) wrote…

Please add some tests to verify only what you wanted is left in the tree after the split.

+1

[sirandreww-starkware]

@sirandreww-starkware made 3 comments.
Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on matanl-starkware and ShahakShama).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 302 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

+1

Done.

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 302 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

Please add a comment stating if split_off is inclusive or exclusive (and explain the meaning of inclusive/exclusive 😅 )

Done.

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 332 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

IMO you shouldn't fix this. None entry is a valid entry for a 0.14.2 block

Correct, this function is removed entirely in the next PR anyway

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

^{❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, have a team admin enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 441da6b. Configure here.}

[ShahakShama]

@ShahakShama reviewed 2 files and all commit messages, and made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on matanl-starkware and sirandreww-starkware).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 302 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, sirandreww-starkware (Andrew Luka) wrote…

Done.

This is good, but what I meant is to have a code comment that "copies and summarizes" the documentation of split_off from std

[sirandreww-starkware]

@sirandreww-starkware made 2 comments and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on matanl-starkware and ShahakShama).

---

crates/apollo_consensus_orchestrator/src/sequencer_consensus_context.rs line 302 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

This is good, but what I meant is to have a code comment that "copies and summarizes" the documentation of split_off from std

I think Done?

[ShahakShama]

@ShahakShama reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on matanl-starkware).

[ShahakShama]

@ShahakShama made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on matanl-starkware).

[matanl-starkware]

@matanl-starkware partially reviewed 2 files and all commit messages, and resolved 2 discussions.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on sirandreww-starkware).