Fix getClientVersionV1 for Geth 1.13#5884
Merged
mergify[bot] merged 1 commit intosigp:unstablefrom Jun 4, 2024
Merged
Conversation
michaelsproul
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2024
Squashed commit of the following: commit 631328d Author: Michael Sproul <michael@sigmaprime.io> Date: Tue Jun 4 11:34:45 2024 +1000 Fix getClientVersionV1 for Geth 1.13
Merged
Member
|
@mergify queue |
✅ The pull request has been merged automaticallyDetailsThe pull request has been merged automatically at 2c72bb8 |
This was referenced Jun 4, 2024
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
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Issue Addressed
Fix an incompatibility with Geth 1.13 which does not follow the spec for
engine_getClientVersionV1:Proposed Changes
If Lighthouse is used with this buggy version of Geth we set the
nameto"". Lighthouse doesn't use the name for anything at present, so IMO there's no point adding complexity to read theclientNamefield.