Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Don't expect DAS config in HTTP spec response #6221

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 6, 2024

Conversation

michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@michaelsproul michaelsproul commented Aug 5, 2024

Issue Addressed

Lighthouse v5.3.0 RC validator clients unintentionally broke backwards compatibility with prior BNs due to some peer DAS fields that were considered mandatory in the /eth/v1/config/spec response:

ERRO Unable to read spec from beacon node endpoint: https://localhost:5052/, error: HttpClient(, kind: decode, detail: missing field CUSTODY_REQUIREMENT at line 1 column 4281)

Proposed Changes

  • Add default annotations for the peer DAS fields of Config so the VC doesn't fail to decode responses that lack these fields. This is not necessarily a great approach, but it's what we've done for every fork so far. It might be nice to clean this up in future.

Additional Info

In future we could also remove the defaults for past forks.

@michaelsproul michaelsproul added val-client Relates to the validator client binary ready-for-review The code is ready for review v5.3.0 Q3 2024 release with database changes! labels Aug 5, 2024
michaelsproul added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2024
Squashed commit of the following:

commit a4b1343
Author: Michael Sproul <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon Aug 5 11:12:54 2024 +1000

    Don't expect DAS config in HTTP spec response
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

The queue conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

@michaelsproul michaelsproul added ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels Aug 6, 2024
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
@jimmygchen
Copy link
Member

@mergify requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

requeue

✅ This pull request will be re-embarked automatically

The followup queue command will be automatically executed to re-embark the pull request

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

The queue conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

@mergify requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

requeue

✅ This pull request will be re-embarked automatically

The followup queue command will be automatically executed to re-embark the pull request

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

The queue conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
michaelsproul added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
Squashed commit of the following:

commit a4b1343
Author: Michael Sproul <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon Aug 5 11:12:54 2024 +1000

    Don't expect DAS config in HTTP spec response
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

Rebasing this so we can re-run CI here on the PR until it succeeds, and then merge instantly

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

Pull request #6221 has been dequeued by a dequeue command.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

@mergify dequeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

dequeue

✅ The pull request has been removed from the queue default

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

Pull request #6221 has been dequeued by a dequeue command.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

@mergify refresh

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

refresh

✅ Pull request refreshed

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

Pull request #6221 has been dequeued by a dequeue command.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member Author

@mergify requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

requeue

✅ This pull request will be re-embarked automatically

The followup queue command will be automatically executed to re-embark the pull request

Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 6, 2024

queue

✅ The pull request has been merged automatically

The pull request has been merged automatically at 42a1cd8

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2024
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 42a1cd8 into sigp:release-v5.3.0 Aug 6, 2024
28 checks passed
@michaelsproul michaelsproul deleted the vc-no-das branch August 6, 2024 07:24
AgeManning pushed a commit to AgeManning/lighthouse that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2024
* Don't expect DAS config in HTTP spec response
chong-he pushed a commit to chong-he/lighthouse that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2024
* Don't expect DAS config in HTTP spec response
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. v5.3.0 Q3 2024 release with database changes! val-client Relates to the validator client binary
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants