Skip to content

Add blob schedule example to config/spec api#529

Merged
nflaig merged 4 commits into
masterfrom
nflaig/blob-schedule
May 15, 2025
Merged

Add blob schedule example to config/spec api#529
nflaig merged 4 commits into
masterfrom
nflaig/blob-schedule

Conversation

@nflaig

@nflaig nflaig commented May 8, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

To accommodate ethereum/consensus-specs#4277 and clarify format we expect to be returned from /eth/v1/config/spec api.

@nflaig nflaig added the Fulu label May 8, 2025

@rolfyone rolfyone left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jimmygchen jimmygchen left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, thanks!

@nflaig nflaig merged commit 32a9007 into master May 15, 2025
3 checks passed
@nflaig nflaig deleted the nflaig/blob-schedule branch May 15, 2025 14:45
@hangleang

Copy link
Copy Markdown

How others client feel if the BPO entries return as descending sorted?

In our current implementation, we sort the list while deserialize the config file, so we don't need to sort it every time the function called. I knew it won't cause much computation overhead for sorting few items, but the function will be often called while it is unnecessary redundant operation.

Sorry for the late comment, everyone

@nflaig

nflaig commented May 16, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

In our current implementation, we sort the list while deserialize the config file, so we don't need to sort it every time the function called. I knew it won't cause much computation overhead for sorting few items, but the function will be often called while it is unnecessary redundant operation.

Currently get_max_blobs_per_block in the CL spec has the sorting inside the function, so if you wanna follow close to spec you would have it in the implementation as well. I am mostly wondering if this needs to be noted in the api or if it should rather return the config as it is configured in the client.

How others client feel if the BPO entries return as descending sorted?

Does that mean if someone passes in the config, would we error if it's not sorted?

Could open a follow-up PR / issue for more discussion, the main goal of this PR was to have a common format and not return a stringified array for example which would have been alternative format we could use

@hangleang

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Does that mean if someone passes in the config, would we error if it's not sorted?

I believe clients should be able to handle regardless of what order is

nflaig added a commit to ChainSafe/lodestar that referenced this pull request May 21, 2025
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

---------

Co-authored-by: Nico Flaig <nflaig@protonmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants