Skip to content

fix: improve port checking for Prysm and execution client#81

Merged
coincashew merged 1 commit intocoincashew:mainfrom
Jor-Tech:feature/improve-port-checking
Apr 30, 2025
Merged

fix: improve port checking for Prysm and execution client#81
coincashew merged 1 commit intocoincashew:mainfrom
Jor-Tech:feature/improve-port-checking

Conversation

@Jor-Tech
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Improved Port Checking for Prysm and Execution Client

Description

This PR enhances the port checking functionality in the node checker to better handle Prysm's specific port requirements and improve UDP port visibility. The changes ensure proper detection and reporting of all necessary ports for both consensus and execution clients.

Changes

  • Added separate checks for Prysm's specific ports (12000 UDP and 13000 TCP)
  • Implemented consistent checking of execution client port 30303 (TCP/UDP) regardless of consensus client
  • Improved UDP port visibility in the listening ports overview
  • Updated port checker to handle both TCP and UDP ports separately
  • Enhanced output messages for better clarity and consistency

Testing

The changes have been tested with:

  • Prysm consensus client (ports 12000 UDP and 13000 TCP)
  • Geth execution client (port 30303 TCP/UDP)
  • Other consensus clients (port 9000 TCP)

Impact

These changes ensure that:

  1. All necessary ports are properly checked and reported
  2. UDP ports are correctly detected and displayed
  3. Port checking is consistent across different client combinations
  4. Output messages clearly indicate which ports are being checked

Related Issues

  • Fixes port visibility issues for UDP ports
  • Resolves inconsistent port checking for Prysm
  • Ensures execution client port is always checked

@coincashew
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This is 🔥

@coincashew coincashew merged commit a7c9762 into coincashew:main Apr 30, 2025
1 check passed
@Jor-Tech Jor-Tech deleted the feature/improve-port-checking branch April 30, 2025 19:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants