Conversation
nflaig
reviewed
May 3, 2025
Member
|
changes seems pretty isolated, I think it's better to target unstable branch instead and rebase/merge changes into |
Contributor
Performance Report✔️ no performance regression detected Full benchmark results
|
nflaig
reviewed
May 9, 2025
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## unstable #7729 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 55.78% 55.82% +0.04%
============================================
Files 823 823
Lines 58093 58157 +64
Branches 4470 4498 +28
============================================
+ Hits 32406 32466 +60
- Misses 25620 25624 +4
Partials 67 67 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
nflaig
reviewed
May 16, 2025
nflaig
reviewed
May 16, 2025
nflaig
reviewed
May 16, 2025
| getMaxBlobsPerBlock(fork: ForkName): number; | ||
| getMaxBlobsPerBlock(epoch: Epoch): number; | ||
| /** Get max request blob sidecars by hard-fork */ | ||
| getMaxRequestBlobSidecars(fork: ForkName): number; |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
might also wanna update getMaxRequestBlobSidecars but it might be removed soon and we might be fine just calculating it where we need it
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe we get rid of this function altogether and always calculate the value as proposed in ethereum/consensus-specs#4322
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe we get rid of this function altogether and always calculate the value as proposed in ethereum/consensus-specs#4322
This change will likely be in devnet 1. Will follow up in another PR
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change will likely be in devnet 1. Will follow up in another PR
In devnet-0 the req/resp limits will be wrong then, we should consider doing this already for that devnet, can do it in a separate PR though to keep diff minimal here and focus on blob schedule changes
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
might also wanna update
getMaxRequestBlobSidecarsbut it might be removed soon and we might be fine just calculating it where we need it
As pointed out here #7729 (comment) , devnet-0 is still using MAX_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK_ELECTRA and MAX_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK for electra and deneb.
Can hold off making this change until devnet-1
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But still, we need to update those values for fulu and later, otherwise we keep using the electra values, I don't think it's a big deal though
nflaig
reviewed
May 20, 2025
| MAX_BLOB_COMMITMENTS_PER_BLOCK: denebForkRelevant, | ||
| KZG_COMMITMENT_INCLUSION_PROOF_DEPTH: denebForkRelevant, | ||
| MAX_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK: denebForkRelevant, | ||
| BLOB_SCHEDULE: denebForkRelevant, |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this will be problematic, if a beacon node does not yet have BLOB_SCHEDULE or didn't backport deneb/electra values then it won't be able to interop with lodestar vc which is really bad since Obol uses it as primary vc
I think we need to add this as fuluForkRelevant for now, we lose some checks on deneb/electra values but that should be fine, might make it stricter once we know majority/all bns implemented this, or earliest in the backport PR when we remove previous constants
Contributor
Author
|
Just realized back port blob schedule to Deneb and Electra is not part of fusaka devnet-0 but devnet-1. Updated to reflect this. |
nflaig
approved these changes
May 21, 2025
This was referenced May 22, 2025
ensi321
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 22, 2025
**Motivation** Follow up to #7729, we need to configure blob schedule for each network. This will become relevant once we fully backport blob schedule to deneb and electra. **Description** Add blob schedule to each network config
nflaig
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 27, 2025
…ms (#7859) **Motivation** Follow up to #7729, we need to handle blob schedule separately from generic string comparison of values, otherwise what we compare are shallow stringified arrays. It does not validate the object properties and on length mismatch we just get the following error ``` ✖ Error: Local and remote configs are different BLOB_SCHEDULE different value: [object object] != [object object],[object object] ``` **Description** Add special handling for blob schedule when asserting equal params - deserialize and sort blob schedules - compare length of local and remote blob schedule - then check each entry by comparing `EPOCH` and `MAX_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK`
Member
|
🎉 This PR is included in v1.31.0 🎉 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Relevant spec ethereum/consensus-specs#4277 and ethereum/beacon-APIs#529
Implement EIP-7892 as laid out in v1.6.0-alpha.0 for fusaka devnet-0. Any open spec PR which is not within the scope of devnet-0 will be implemented in a follow up PR