chore(consensus): update ConsensusManagerConfig with new parameters

[guy-starkware]

This adds a few missing fields to the ConsensusManagerConfig struct.
One of them is network_config, which is also removed from ConsensusConfig.

The ConsensusConfig needs a few other modifications, but I'll get to them in one of the next PRs.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[guy-starkware]

• chore(consensus): update ConsensusManagerConfig with new parameters #3340 : 2 dependent PRs (#3377 , #3379 ) 👈 (View in Graphite)
• chore(consensus): add ContextConfig to SequencerConcensusContext #3634
• main

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

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload workflows:

• Started at 2025-01-15T13:08:08Z
• Started at 2025-02-02T09:54:20Z

[asmaastarkware]

Reviewed 8 of 10 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 7 of 10 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @guy-starkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/starknet_consensus_manager/src/config.rs line 23 at r2 (raw file):

    pub votes_topic: String,
    pub proposals_topic: String,
    pub immediate_active_height: u64,

Do you mean the start_height in ConsensusConfig? if so, I would prefer using start_height instead

---

crates/starknet_consensus_manager/src/config.rs line 57 at r2 (raw file):

        ]);
        output_tree.extend(additional_parameters);
        output_tree

Suggestion:

        let mut config = BTreeMap::from_iter([
            ser_param(
                "votes_topic",
                &self.votes_topic,
                "The topic for consensus votes.",
                ParamPrivacyInput::Public,
            ),
            ser_param(
                "proposals_topic",
                &self.proposals_topic,
                "The topic for consensus proposals.",
                ParamPrivacyInput::Public,
            ),
            ser_param(
                "immediate_active_height",
                &self.immediate_active_height,
                "The height at which the consensus manager becomes active.",
                ParamPrivacyInput::Public,
            ),
        ]);
        config.extend(append_sub_config_name(self.consensus_config.dump(), "consensus_config"));
        config.extend(append_sub_config_name(self.context_config.dump(), "context_config"));
        config.extend(append_sub_config_name(self.cende_config.dump(), "cende_config"));
        config.extend(append_sub_config_name(self.network_config.dump(), "network_confi)"));
        config

[guy-starkware]

Reviewable status: 6 of 10 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @asmaastarkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/starknet_consensus_manager/src/config.rs line 23 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, asmaastarkware (asmaa-starkware) wrote…

Do you mean the start_height in ConsensusConfig? if so, I would prefer using start_height instead

I'm not sure. @matan-starkware WDYT?

---

crates/starknet_consensus_manager/src/config.rs line 57 at r2 (raw file):

        ]);
        output_tree.extend(additional_parameters);
        output_tree

Done.

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 5 of 10 files at r1, 1 of 3 files at r5, 4 of 4 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @asmaastarkware and @guy-starkware)

---

crates/starknet_consensus_manager/src/config.rs line 23 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, guy-starkware wrote…

I'm not sure. @matan-starkware WDYT?

I think immediate_active_height is preferable. The point is that we are overriding observer mode, not setting the start height, as that is still derived from that batcher.

---

crates/starknet_consensus_manager/src/config.rs line 46 at r6 (raw file):

                "immediate_active_height",
                &self.immediate_active_height,
                "The height at which the consensus manager becomes active.",

Suggestion:

                "The height at which the node may actively participate in consensus.",

---

crates/starknet_integration_tests/src/utils.rs line 137 at r6 (raw file):

            consensus_config: ConsensusConfig {
                start_height: BlockNumber(1),
		// TODO(Matan, Dan): Set the right amount

fix spacing

Code quote:

		// TODO(Matan, Dan): Set the right amount

[guy-starkware]

Reviewable status: 7 of 10 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @asmaastarkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/starknet_consensus_manager/src/config.rs line 23 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

I think immediate_active_height is preferable. The point is that we are overriding observer mode, not setting the start height, as that is still derived from that batcher.

Done.

---

crates/starknet_integration_tests/src/utils.rs line 137 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

fix spacing

Done.

---

crates/starknet_consensus_manager/src/config.rs line 46 at r6 (raw file):

                "immediate_active_height",
                &self.immediate_active_height,
                "The height at which the consensus manager becomes active.",

Done.

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @asmaastarkware)

---

crates/starknet_integration_tests/src/utils.rs line 137 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, guy-starkware wrote…

Done.

Still shows tabs for me on reviewable. Can you double check they are spaces?

[guy-starkware]

Reviewable status: 9 of 10 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @asmaastarkware and @matan-starkware)

---

crates/starknet_integration_tests/src/utils.rs line 137 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, matan-starkware wrote…

Still shows tabs for me on reviewable. Can you double check they are spaces?

OK I didn't notice those were tabs. It is very strange because I didn't even know there were any tabs in VSCode... I fixed it now.

[guy-starkware]

Reviewed 5 of 10 files at r1, 2 of 4 files at r6, 2 of 3 files at r7, 1 of 1 files at r8, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @asmaastarkware and @matan-starkware)

[matan-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r8, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @asmaastarkware)

[asmaastarkware]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guy-starkware)

[asmaastarkware]

Reviewed 2 of 4 files at r6, 1 of 3 files at r7, 1 of 1 files at r8.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guy-starkware)

[guy-starkware]

Dismissed @asmaastarkware from a discussion.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @guy-starkware)

[guy-starkware]

Reviewed 5 of 5 files at r9, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @guy-starkware)