[Merged by Bors] - Send success code for duplicate blocks on HTTP #4655
Conversation
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
michaelsproul
added
ready-for-review
michaelsproul
force-pushed
the
http-duplicate-block-simplest
branch
from
e846143 to
bc95192
Compare
jimmygchen
reviewed
Aug 24, 2023
jimmygchen
reviewed
Aug 24, 2023
jimmygchen
approved these changes
Aug 24, 2023
paulhauner
approved these changes
Aug 25, 2023
jimmygchen
added
ready-for-review
paulhauner
added
ready-for-merge
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 28, 2023
## Issue Addressed Closes #4473 (take 3) ## Proposed Changes - Send a 202 status code by default for duplicate blocks, instead of 400. This conveys to the caller that the block was published, but makes no guarantees about its validity. Block relays can count this as a success or a failure as they wish. - For users wanting finer-grained control over which status is returned for duplicates, a flag `--http-duplicate-block-status` can be used to adjust the behaviour. A 400 status can be supplied to restore the old (spec-compliant) behaviour, or a 200 status can be used to silence VCs that warn loudly for non-200 codes (e.g. Lighthouse prior to v4.4.0). - Update the Lighthouse VC to gracefully handle success codes other than 200. The info message isn't the nicest thing to read, but it covers all bases and isn't a nasty `ERRO`/`CRIT` that will wake anyone up. ## Additional Info I'm planning to raise a PR to `beacon-APIs` to specify that clients may return 202 for duplicate blocks. Really it would be nice to use some 2xx code that _isn't_ the same as the code for "published but invalid". I think unfortunately there aren't any suitable codes, and maybe the best fit is `409 CONFLICT`. Given that we need to fix this promptly for our release, I think using the 202 code temporarily with configuration strikes a nice compromise.
|
Pull request successfully merged into unstable. Build succeeded! The publicly hosted instance of bors-ng is deprecated and will go away soon. If you want to self-host your own instance, instructions are here. If you want to switch to GitHub's built-in merge queue, visit their help page.
|
bors
bot
changed the title
jxs
pushed a commit
to jxs/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 28, 2023
## Issue Addressed Closes sigp#4473 (take 3) ## Proposed Changes - Send a 202 status code by default for duplicate blocks, instead of 400. This conveys to the caller that the block was published, but makes no guarantees about its validity. Block relays can count this as a success or a failure as they wish. - For users wanting finer-grained control over which status is returned for duplicates, a flag `--http-duplicate-block-status` can be used to adjust the behaviour. A 400 status can be supplied to restore the old (spec-compliant) behaviour, or a 200 status can be used to silence VCs that warn loudly for non-200 codes (e.g. Lighthouse prior to v4.4.0). - Update the Lighthouse VC to gracefully handle success codes other than 200. The info message isn't the nicest thing to read, but it covers all bases and isn't a nasty `ERRO`/`CRIT` that will wake anyone up. ## Additional Info I'm planning to raise a PR to `beacon-APIs` to specify that clients may return 202 for duplicate blocks. Really it would be nice to use some 2xx code that _isn't_ the same as the code for "published but invalid". I think unfortunately there aren't any suitable codes, and maybe the best fit is `409 CONFLICT`. Given that we need to fix this promptly for our release, I think using the 202 code temporarily with configuration strikes a nice compromise.
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
Closes sigp#4473 (take 3) - Send a 202 status code by default for duplicate blocks, instead of 400. This conveys to the caller that the block was published, but makes no guarantees about its validity. Block relays can count this as a success or a failure as they wish. - For users wanting finer-grained control over which status is returned for duplicates, a flag `--http-duplicate-block-status` can be used to adjust the behaviour. A 400 status can be supplied to restore the old (spec-compliant) behaviour, or a 200 status can be used to silence VCs that warn loudly for non-200 codes (e.g. Lighthouse prior to v4.4.0). - Update the Lighthouse VC to gracefully handle success codes other than 200. The info message isn't the nicest thing to read, but it covers all bases and isn't a nasty `ERRO`/`CRIT` that will wake anyone up. I'm planning to raise a PR to `beacon-APIs` to specify that clients may return 202 for duplicate blocks. Really it would be nice to use some 2xx code that _isn't_ the same as the code for "published but invalid". I think unfortunately there aren't any suitable codes, and maybe the best fit is `409 CONFLICT`. Given that we need to fix this promptly for our release, I think using the 202 code temporarily with configuration strikes a nice compromise.
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
Closes sigp#4473 (take 3) - Send a 202 status code by default for duplicate blocks, instead of 400. This conveys to the caller that the block was published, but makes no guarantees about its validity. Block relays can count this as a success or a failure as they wish. - For users wanting finer-grained control over which status is returned for duplicates, a flag `--http-duplicate-block-status` can be used to adjust the behaviour. A 400 status can be supplied to restore the old (spec-compliant) behaviour, or a 200 status can be used to silence VCs that warn loudly for non-200 codes (e.g. Lighthouse prior to v4.4.0). - Update the Lighthouse VC to gracefully handle success codes other than 200. The info message isn't the nicest thing to read, but it covers all bases and isn't a nasty `ERRO`/`CRIT` that will wake anyone up. I'm planning to raise a PR to `beacon-APIs` to specify that clients may return 202 for duplicate blocks. Really it would be nice to use some 2xx code that _isn't_ the same as the code for "published but invalid". I think unfortunately there aren't any suitable codes, and maybe the best fit is `409 CONFLICT`. Given that we need to fix this promptly for our release, I think using the 202 code temporarily with configuration strikes a nice compromise.
4 tasks
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
Closes #4473 (take 3)
Proposed Changes
--http-duplicate-block-statuscan be used to adjust the behaviour. A 400 status can be supplied to restore the old (spec-compliant) behaviour, or a 200 status can be used to silence VCs that warn loudly for non-200 codes (e.g. Lighthouse prior to v4.4.0).ERRO/CRITthat will wake anyone up.Additional Info
I'm planning to raise a PR to
beacon-APIsto specify that clients may return 202 for duplicate blocks. Really it would be nice to use some 2xx code that isn't the same as the code for "published but invalid". I think unfortunately there aren't any suitable codes, and maybe the best fit is409 CONFLICT. Given that we need to fix this promptly for our release, I think using the 202 code temporarily with configuration strikes a nice compromise.