[tor-bugs] #13125 [Tor]: Review the guardiness python script of #9321

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#13125: Review the guardiness python script of #9321
------------------------+--------------------------------
     Reporter:  asn     |      Owner:
         Type:  defect  |     Status:  needs_review
     Priority:  normal  |  Milestone:  Tor: 0.2.7.x-final
    Component:  Tor     |    Version:
   Resolution:          |   Keywords:  tor-guard tor-auth
Actual Points:          |  Parent ID:  #9321
       Points:          |
------------------------+--------------------------------

Comment (by Sebastian):

 Looks plausible, I could see myself trying it out. A couple of things: The
 cron script should never output a single thing in the case where no errors
 happened, but if an error happened it should always make sure that gets
 reported. There probably wants to be a vacuum somewhere so the database
 file gets shrunk periodically. There should be a protection against
 parallel execution of the script, because that will happen eventually.
 What is the deal with not importing a consensus if it isn't valid anymore?
 I don't understand the logic. The duplicate protection should prevent
 duplicates, so what's the issue?

 For the output format, I thought we had talked about giving a way to
 enumerate which consensuses were missing. Maybe that could at least be an
 optional command? Also, instead of
 {{{
 n-inputs <number of consesuses parsed> <number of months considered>
 }}}

 maybe

 {{{
 n-inputs <number of consensuses parsed> <number of all consensuses in
 voting period> <number of months considered>
 }}}

 is more appropriate/easier to understand? Because otherwise "how many
 hours is a month" becomes an issue.

 What happens with consensuses generated at the half-hour mark? Can they
 accidentally get added, and if they do, do they distort results?

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13125#comment:9>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online