apollo_l1_provider: change L1_BLOCK_TIME to be 12 seconds

[guy-starkware]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[guy-starkware]

• apollo_l1_provider: replace bootstrapping with catching up #10726
• apollo_l1_provider: rename catch_up_height and historic height #10725
• apollo_l1_provider: scraper historic height is one more #10724
• apollo_l1_provider: minor updates to some bootstrapping tests of the L1 provider #10702
• apollo_l1_provider: add reset_bootstrapper function #10513
• apollo_l1_provider: check for uninitialized instead of bootstrapping+sync started #10512
• apollo_l1_provider: add verification that tx is pending when getting it from proposable index #10511
• apollo_l1_provider: improve add_tx and prevent double scraping #10508
• apollo_l1_provider: add l1_block_time as a config parameter #10505
• apollo_l1_provider: change L1_BLOCK_TIME to be 12 seconds #10544 👈 (View in Graphite)
• apollo_l1_provider: fix log message when skipping over historic heights #10465
• apollo_l1_provider: reduce number of provider error variants #10414
• apollo_l1_provider: remove some panics in the L1 Provider #10411
• main-v0.14.1

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

[sirandreww-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[ShahakShama]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @guy-starkware)

---

crates/apollo_l1_provider/src/l1_scraper.rs line 39 at r1 (raw file):

// TODO(guyn): make this a config parameter
// Sensible lower bound.
const L1_BLOCK_TIME: u64 = 12;

Where do we use it? What are the implications of this change? I see a comment that this is a sensible lower bound, shouldn't we have a few spares?

[guy-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ShahakShama)

---

crates/apollo_l1_provider/src/l1_scraper.rs line 39 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ShahakShama wrote…

Where do we use it? What are the implications of this change? I see a comment that this is a sensible lower bound, shouldn't we have a few spares?

Right now this is only used in the scraper's estimate of how many blocks "one and a half hours ago" should be (actually, the estimate is one hour, and we take 50% margin on that!).

It could be used in other places in the future.

The next PR makes this a config parameter.

In any case, putting the wrong number "as lower bound" could get us in trouble if the margin happens to need to be on the other side (for example, if we try to estimate "at least one hour" using this number is actually messing up our result, not adding margin to it).

Besides all this, I don't see why we should define a wrong constant.

[ShahakShama]

@ShahakShama reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @guy-starkware)