Skip to content

Comments

Removed code for GET validator/blinded_blocks and also adjusted/removed tests#7515

Open
PoulavBhowmick03 wants to merge 6 commits intosigp:unstablefrom
PoulavBhowmick03:remove/blinded_blocks
Open

Removed code for GET validator/blinded_blocks and also adjusted/removed tests#7515
PoulavBhowmick03 wants to merge 6 commits intosigp:unstablefrom
PoulavBhowmick03:remove/blinded_blocks

Conversation

@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor

@PoulavBhowmick03 PoulavBhowmick03 commented May 24, 2025

Issue Addressed

Fixes #7456

Proposed Changes

Remove client/server code for deprecated GET validator/blinded_blocks endpoint and subsequently, removed the tests which were just testing the blinded endpoint, and modified other endpoints to use the new GET /eth/v3/validator/blocks endpoint

Additional Info

None

@PoulavBhowmick03 PoulavBhowmick03 force-pushed the remove/blinded_blocks branch from 0d463bd to 7cfbced Compare May 24, 2025 13:41
@PoulavBhowmick03 PoulavBhowmick03 changed the title Removed code for GET validator/blinded_blocks and also adjusted/removed tests Removed code for GET validator/blinded_blocks and also adjusted/removed tests May 24, 2025
@PoulavBhowmick03 PoulavBhowmick03 force-pushed the remove/blinded_blocks branch from 7cfbced to b0b57b5 Compare May 24, 2025 14:08
@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michaelsproul @eserilev PTAL at this

@michaelsproul michaelsproul added ready-for-review The code is ready for review code-quality backwards-incompat Backwards-incompatible API change labels May 25, 2025
@michaelsproul michaelsproul added waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels May 25, 2025
@PoulavBhowmick03 PoulavBhowmick03 force-pushed the remove/blinded_blocks branch 2 times, most recently from 53dc327 to 3936be5 Compare May 29, 2025 11:33
@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michaelsproul can you take a look at the changes and the implementation now please?

Comment on lines +4638 to +4650
let (payload_type, metadata) = self
.client
.get_validator_blinded_blocks::<E>(slot, &randao_reveal, None)
.get_validator_blocks_v3::<E>(slot, &randao_reveal, None, None)
.await
.unwrap()
.into_data()
.body()
.execution_payload()
.unwrap()
.into();
.unwrap();
Self::check_block_v3_metadata(&metadata, &payload_type);

let payload: FullPayload<E> = match payload_type.data {
ProduceBlockV3Response::Full(payload) => {
payload.block().body().execution_payload().unwrap().into()
}
ProduceBlockV3Response::Blinded(_) => panic!("Expecting a full payload"),
};
Copy link
Member

@eserilev eserilev May 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

comment for clarity: we want to check that we fallback local EE, so this is equivalent to the previous test format. Some of the other test changes below do something similar. looks good!

Copy link
Member

@eserilev eserilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any update on this? @michaelsproul
Would be great, i would love to create a pr for #7478 but this would otherwise cause merge conflicts

Copy link
Member

@michaelsproul michaelsproul left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good on the whole, thanks for sticking with this!

Just a few tweaks and then I think we can merge.

Sorry for the slow review, I've been busy trying to get tree-states across the line and also getting some stuff reading for the next PeerDAS devnet

self.chain.slot_clock.set_slot(slot.as_u64() + 1);
}
ProduceBlockV3Response::Full(block_contents) => {
assert!(!metadata.execution_payload_blinded);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This test is meant to be checking blinded production, so I think it should error in the Full case

@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks good on the whole, thanks for sticking with this!

Just a few tweaks and then I think we can merge.

Sorry for the slow review, I've been busy trying to get tree-states across the line and also getting some stuff reading for the next PeerDAS devnet

Ah I see, that's some important stuff to get done with! No issues
Thanks a lot!

@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michaelsproul, in order for the tests to pass, what should we do in case of panic for FullBlock?

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

what you suggested about only panicking post Bellatrix sounds good

@PoulavBhowmick03 PoulavBhowmick03 force-pushed the remove/blinded_blocks branch 2 times, most recently from f8523b4 to 00f985e Compare July 8, 2025 06:18
@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michaelsproul can you PTAL now

@mergify mergify bot closed this Aug 29, 2025
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Aug 29, 2025

Hi @PoulavBhowmick03, this pull request has been closed automatically due to 30 days of inactivity. If you’d like to continue working on it, feel free to reopen at any time.

@mergify mergify bot added the stale Stale PRs that have been inactive and is now outdated label Aug 29, 2025
@michaelsproul michaelsproul reopened this Sep 18, 2025
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

Sorry this got backburnered while we fixed the HTTP tests (harder than expected: #7943). I didn't want to merge it while the tests were disabled.

If you can update it with the latest changes from unstable and make sure the tests are passing, we can review it and merge 🙏

Thanks!

@michaelsproul michaelsproul removed the stale Stale PRs that have been inactive and is now outdated label Sep 18, 2025
@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry this got backburnered while we fixed the HTTP tests (harder than expected: #7943). I didn't want to merge it while the tests were disabled.

If you can update it with the latest changes from unstable and make sure the tests are passing, we can review it and merge 🙏

Thanks!

yes i was looking into that PR. sure, i will fetch the changes and work on this!

@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michaelsproul i have fixed the merge conflicts, can you take a look if it's fine

@mergify mergify bot closed this Nov 13, 2025
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Nov 13, 2025

Hi @PoulavBhowmick03, this pull request has been closed automatically due to 30 days of inactivity. If you’d like to continue working on it, feel free to reopen at any time.

@mergify mergify bot added the stale Stale PRs that have been inactive and is now outdated label Nov 13, 2025
@michaelsproul michaelsproul reopened this Nov 14, 2025
@mergify mergify bot closed this Dec 14, 2025
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Dec 14, 2025

Hi @PoulavBhowmick03, this pull request has been closed automatically due to 30 days of inactivity. If you’d like to continue working on it, feel free to reopen at any time.

@michaelsproul michaelsproul reopened this Dec 14, 2025
@PoulavBhowmick03
Copy link
Contributor Author

Mergify might be getting angry over this PR now 😂

@mergify mergify bot closed this Jan 13, 2026
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 13, 2026

Hi @PoulavBhowmick03, this pull request has been closed automatically due to 30 days of inactivity. If you’d like to continue working on it, feel free to reopen at any time.

@eserilev eserilev reopened this Feb 3, 2026
@eserilev eserilev self-requested a review February 3, 2026 05:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

backwards-incompat Backwards-incompatible API change code-quality stale Stale PRs that have been inactive and is now outdated waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants