[Merged by Bors] - Strict fee recipient #3363
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
realbigsean
added
ready-for-review
paulhauner
requested changes
Jul 24, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice, looks well thought out.
I have a simple copy-paste fix (I assume). It might also be easy and simple to add a test for the flag, like this one:
lighthouse/lighthouse/tests/validator_client.rs
Lines 378 to 384 in 21dec6f
paulhauner
added
waiting-on-author
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <[email protected]>
|
Oof my bad, had I put in the test I would have caught it :/. Thanks! |
paulhauner
added
ready-for-merge
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2022
## Issue Addressed Resolves #3267 Resolves #3156 ## Proposed Changes - Move the log for fee recipient checks from proposer cache insertion into block proposal so we are directly checking what we get from the EE - Only log when there is a discrepancy with the local EE, not when using the builder API. In the `builder-api` branch there is an `info` log when there is a discrepancy, I think it is more likely there will be a difference in fee recipient with the builder api because proposer payments might be made via a transaction in the block. Not really sure what patterns will become commong. - Upgrade the log from a `warn` to an `error` - not actually sure which we want, but I think this is worth an error because the local EE with default transaction ordering I think should pretty much always use the provided fee recipient - add a `strict-fee-recipient` flag to the VC so we only sign blocks with matching fee recipients. Falls back from the builder API to the local API if there is a discrepancy . Co-authored-by: realbigsean <[email protected]>
bors
bot
changed the title
This was referenced Jul 26, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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
Resolves #3267
Resolves #3156
Proposed Changes
builder-apibranch there is aninfolog when there is a discrepancy, I think it is more likely there will be a difference in fee recipient with the builder api because proposer payments might be made via a transaction in the block. Not really sure what patterns will become commong.warnto anerror- not actually sure which we want, but I think this is worth an error because the local EE with default transaction ordering I think should pretty much always use the provided fee recipientstrict-fee-recipientflag to the VC so we only sign blocks with matching fee recipients. Falls back from the builder API to the local API if there is a discrepancy .