refactor: rename ValidatorConsensusData to ProposerConsensusData

[shane-moore]

Issue Addressed

Spec alignment with SSV spec renaming PR #596 (commit e5171469) and SSV Go commit 7b3f7a77f.

Proposed Changes

• Rename ValidatorConsensusData to ProposerConsensusData and related types (ValidatorConsensusDataValidator, ValidatorConsensusDataLen, ValidatorInstanceId) to align with the spec
• Add TODO(post-boole) comments on pre-Boole code paths that will be removed when Aggregator and SyncCommittee post-fork

Additional Info

N/A

[shane-moore]

@claude

[claude-code-actions-sigp]

Claude finished @shane-moore's task in 1m 18s —— View job

---

Code Review Progress ✓

• Read all changed files
• Review renaming consistency
• Verify SSZ max size calculations
• Review TODO comments
• Check for edge cases and potential issues
• Provide final review feedback

---

Review Summary

This PR implements a straightforward and well-executed refactoring to align Anchor's naming with the SSV specification. The changes are consistent, correctly applied, and include proper documentation for future cleanup work.

Detailed Findings

✅ Strengths

1. Naming Consistency: The renaming from ValidatorConsensusData to ProposerConsensusData (and related types) is consistently applied across all 5 files with no missed references.

2. Correct SSZ Size Calculations:

   • PartialSignatureMessagesLen: Updated from 1512 to 5048 to accommodate worst-case committee scenario (3000 aggregators + 512×4 sync committee contributors). Math verified: 3000 + 2048 = 5048 ✓
   • SSVMessageDataLen: Updated from 722412 to 726932, correctly bounded by the larger of consensus messages (722412) and partial sig messages (726932). Math verified: 726 * 1000 + 932 = 726932 ✓

3. Future-Proofing: Appropriate TODO(post-boole) comments added to mark pre-Boole code paths that will be removed after the Aggregator and SyncCommittee roles transition post-fork.

4. Documentation: Comments updated to reflect new terminology and explain size calculations clearly.

📋 Observations

1. Post-Boole Cleanup Scope: The TODO comments indicate that several code paths will be removed post-Boole:

   • ValidatorDutyKind enum (anchor/qbft_manager/src/lib.rs:87-92)
   • duty field in ProposerInstanceId (anchor/qbft_manager/src/lib.rs:78-81)
   • BEACON_ROLE_AGGREGATOR and BEACON_ROLE_SYNC_COMMITTEE_CONTRIBUTION validation branches (anchor/common/ssv_types/src/consensus.rs:340-342)

2. Naming Rationale: The rename reflects that this consensus data structure is specifically for proposer duties, even though it currently handles aggregator and sync committee duties as well (pre-Boole). This aligns with the spec's direction.

🔍 Minor Observations

1. Comment Formatting: Line anchor/qbft_manager/src/lib.rs:86 has a minor comment formatting that could be improved:

   // TODO(post-boole): remove this enum. Post-boole, `Proposal` is the only
   // validator specific duty kind.

   Suggestion: Capitalize "Post-Boole" consistently with other TODOs for uniformity.

2. Test Coverage: The PR doesn't modify tests, which is fine since this is primarily a renaming refactor. Existing tests should continue to pass with the renamed types.

Verification

I verified:

• ✅ All renamed types are used consistently across the codebase
• ✅ SSZ max size calculations are mathematically correct
• ✅ Comments and documentation are updated to match new names
• ✅ TODO comments clearly mark temporary code paths
• ✅ No logic changes beyond renaming
• ✅ Aligns with SSV spec PR fix(qbft): check whether the leader is correct wrt the round sent with the message #596 and SSV Go commit 7b3f7a77f

Conclusion

Approved. This is a clean, well-documented refactoring that successfully aligns Anchor with the SSV specification naming. The SSZ size updates are correctly calculated and the TODO comments provide clear guidance for future cleanup work.

---

[claude-code-actions-sigp]

Claude finished @shane-moore's task in 1m 4s —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

• Read changed files and analyze diff
• Review type renames for completeness and consistency
• Verify SSZ size changes
• Review TODO comments
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Summary

This PR successfully renames ValidatorConsensusData to ProposerConsensusData and related types to align with the SSV spec. The changes are comprehensive, consistent, and include appropriate TODO comments for future cleanup. I found the implementation to be correct with proper attention to SSZ size updates.

Detailed Review

✅ Type Renames - Complete and Consistent

The rename from ValidatorConsensusData → ProposerConsensusData is thorough across all files:

consensus.rs (anchor/common/ssv_types/src/consensus.rs)

• ValidatorConsensusData → ProposerConsensusData ✅
• ValidatorConsensusDataValidator → ProposerConsensusDataValidator ✅
• ValidatorConsensusDataLen → ProposerConsensusDataLen ✅
• Documentation and error messages updated correctly ✅

qbft_manager/src/lib.rs

• ValidatorInstanceId → ProposerInstanceId ✅
• Map renamed: validator_consensus_data_instances → proposer_consensus_data_instances ✅
• All type references updated in trait implementations ✅

validator_store/src/lib.rs

• Method renamed: create_validator_consensus_data_validator → create_proposer_consensus_data_validator ✅
• All instantiations updated to use new type names ✅

✅ SSZ Max Size Updates - Correct

The SSZ size calculations are accurate and properly justified:

PartialSignatureMessages Max (partial_sig.rs:12-17)

/// Maximum number of `PartialSignatureMessage`s: 5048
/// Worst case scenario for a committee with 3000 validators:
/// every validator has an aggregation duty (3000) +
/// every validator is in sync committee and is a contributor to all 4 subnets (512 * 4 = 2048)
/// Calculated as 3000 + 512 * 4 = 5048
pub type PartialSignatureMessagesLen = Sum<Prod<U3, U1000>, Prod<U512, U4>>;

• Previous: Sum<U1000, U512> = 1512
• New: Sum<Prod<U3, U1000>, Prod<U512, U4>> = 3000 + 2048 = 5048 ✅
• Justification: Accounts for 3000 aggregators + 512×4 sync committee contributors ✅

SSVMessage.Data Max (message.rs:58-61)

/// `SSVMessage.Data` max size: 726932
/// `max(consensus_msg_max, partial_sig_max)` = `max(722412, 726932)` = 726932
/// 726932 = 726 * 1000 + 932
pub type SSVMessageDataLen = Sum<Prod<U726, U1000>, U932>;

• Previous: Sum<Prod<U722, U1000>, U412> = 722412
• New: Sum<Prod<U726, U1000>, U932> = 726932 ✅
• Correctly represents max(consensus, partial_sig) = max(722412, 726932) = 726932 ✅

The size increase is due to the increased PartialSignatureMessagesLen, and the calculation properly takes the maximum of the two message type sizes.

✅ TODO Comments - Appropriate

The TODO comments are well-placed and clearly scoped:

consensus.rs:340-342

// TODO(post-boole): remove `BEACON_ROLE_AGGREGATOR` and
// `BEACON_ROLE_SYNC_COMMITTEE_CONTRIBUTION` branches. Post-Boole, `ProposerConsensusData`
// is only used for `Proposer`.

✅ Correctly identifies code paths to be removed after the Boole fork

qbft_manager/src/lib.rs:79-80

// TODO(post-boole): remove `duty` field and `ValidatorDutyKind`. Post-boole,
// `Proposal` is the only validator specific duty

✅ Marks the duty field and enum for removal

qbft_manager/src/lib.rs:85-86

// TODO(post-boole): remove this enum. Post-boole, `Proposal` is the only
// validator specific duty kind.

✅ Marks entire ValidatorDutyKind enum for removal

These TODOs properly align with the spec changes where aggregator and sync committee will use the new committee-based consensus path post-Boole.

⚠️ Minor Observations

1. Naming Clarity: The rename improves semantic clarity - ProposerConsensusData better reflects that this type is specifically for proposer duties, especially after the Boole fork when it will exclusively handle block proposals.

2. Comment Update: The ASCII art comment in consensus.rs:38 was updated correctly:

   // Old: ValidatorConsensusData/BeaconVote SSZ
   // New: ProposerConsensusData/BeaconVote SSZ

3. No Breaking Changes: The changes are internal type renames without wire format changes, so they're safe for deployment.

📝 Recommendations

No blocking issues found. The PR is ready to merge. Some optional suggestions:

1. Consider: After the Boole fork activates, create follow-up issues to track the TODO cleanup work (removing pre-Boole code paths).

2. Testing: The SSZ size changes should be validated by the existing test in message.rs:1184-1236 (ensure_message_sizes_correct). Consider running this test to verify the constants are correct.

3. Documentation: Consider updating any external documentation or specs that reference ValidatorConsensusData if they exist.

✅ Conclusion

The refactoring is well-executed with:

• Complete and consistent renames across all files
• Correct SSZ size calculations with clear justifications
• Appropriate TODO markers for future cleanup
• No logic changes, just naming improvements

The PR successfully aligns the Anchor codebase with the SSV spec changes while maintaining backward compatibility and setting up a clear path for post-Boole cleanup.

--- | Branch: refactor/rename-validator-data-to-proposer

[dknopik]

LGTM - but can we please split the SSV message length fix into another PR?

[shane-moore]

LGTM - but can we please split the SSV message length fix into another PR?

@dknopik, certainly! cherry picked the commits over to #822

[diegomrsantos]

is this related to #794 ?

[shane-moore]

not directly related, that pr is for message validation whereas this comment is a clean up action item for after the fork hits mainnet. I put the comments in this PR since the comment references ProposerConsensusData, which is the rename done in this PR

we'll want to discuss at some point in a team call how we want to handle the clean up

[diegomrsantos]

Isn't this code also validation?

[shane-moore]

removed comment from here in 5c04089 and added to pr794 in df697d7

[dknopik]

LGTM

[mergify]

Merge Queue Status

Rule: default

---

• ✅ Entered queue — 2026-02-11 09:50 UTC
• ✅ Checks passed · on draft merge queue: embarking unstable (bd94c0b) and #808 together #823
• ✅ Merged — 2026-02-11 10:05 UTC · at 5c040892a6d7c2c28d5da98c201fd1dfbb27ce59

This pull request spent 14 minutes 49 seconds in the queue, including 12 minutes 21 seconds running CI.

Required conditions to merge

• #approved-reviews-by >= 1 [🛡 GitHub repository ruleset rule unstable and release-v*]
  • refactor: rename ValidatorConsensusData to ProposerConsensusData #808
• #changes-requested-reviews-by = 0 [🛡 GitHub repository ruleset rule unstable and release-v*]
  • refactor: rename ValidatorConsensusData to ProposerConsensusData #808
• check-success=test-suite-success
• any of [🛡 GitHub repository ruleset rule unstable and release-v*]:
  • check-success = license/cla
  • check-neutral = license/cla
  • check-skipped = license/cla