fix(consensus): remove double record_block(0) at epoch boundary

[satyakwok]

Summary

CodeRabbit finding on PR #763 — valid.

run_epoch_bookkeeping called self.epoch_manager.record_block(0) before pushing the finished epoch to history. But every call site already invoked epoch_manager.record_block(reward) before entering this method. The extra record_block(0) incremented total_blocks_produced twice for every boundary block, so epoch history carried an inflated block count (+1 per rollover).

Fix: remove the redundant call. The caller's record_block(reward) is sufficient.

What's not fixed

The second CodeRabbit finding (process_unbonding drops releases on transfer failure) is pre-existing behavior, not introduced by PR #763. Fixing it requires changing StakeRegistry::process_unbonding return semantics — deferred to a dedicated PR.

Test plan

• cargo check -p sentrix-core -D warnings clean

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Optimized epoch bookkeeping process by removing an unnecessary operation during epoch finalization.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 04c22612-830b-4ddb-82aa-cefe075e0301

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 69188da and dbb6e4c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• crates/sentrix-core/src/blockchain.rs

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• crates/sentrix-core/src/blockchain.rs

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR removes a single call to epoch_manager.record_block(0) from the Blockchain::run_epoch_bookkeeping method. The call was positioned between computing the total staked balance and finalizing the current epoch by cloning it into history and advancing to the next epoch. After this change, the epoch finalization sequence proceeds directly from stake computation to epoch persistence without the intermediate record operation.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• sentrix-labs/sentrix#763: Both PRs modify epoch-boundary logic inside Blockchain::run_epoch_bookkeeping in the same file, with this PR adjusting the epoch finalization sequence while the related PR introduces or calls the epoch-bookkeeping routine from sync/finalize paths.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The PR description addresses the summary requirement but lacks most of the template structure (Scope, Checks, Linked issue, Deploy impact sections missing).	Complete the PR description by filling out all required template sections including Scope checkboxes, Checks checklist, Linked issue reference, and Deploy impact section.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: removing a redundant record_block(0) call at the epoch boundary.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/epoch-boundary-double-record-block

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!