-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 997
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Clarify BeaconBlockAndBlobsSidecarByRoot no blob available #3154
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nice!
@djrtwo thanks for the feedback, applied comments. Should there be a sentence noting the consequences of that line if
|
@dapplion Is that because you don't think the |
Wording is clear to us, but the consequences as discussed today are important. So I feel that (for new readers for example) calling out that nuance is a useful pointer |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm fine with an explicit line @dapplion but also happy to merge as is
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Lgtm
merging! feel free to add an additional comment in another PR |
😱...estoy atónito!!!! |
Peers may not know the slot of a block when requesting by root. So they may request a root via BeaconBlockAndBlobsSidecarByRoot which does not have any associated blob.
This situation only applies before finalizing EIP4844_FORK_EPOCH. From discussions in #3139 a simple solution that requires a retry is the best trade-off to minimize complexity.
I picked the error code
3: ResourceUnavailable
without strong reasoning. Happy to change to another more meaningful one.