[DO NOT COMMENT. STILL DRAFT]: Str 1961 checkpoint sync#1849
Conversation
|
@codex review |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 169826a580
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| let record = AccountUpdateRecord::new( | ||
| None, | ||
| *update.seqno().inner(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Checkpoint sync stores each AccountUpdateRecord with update_meta = None, but OLRpcServer::get_acct_epoch_summary currently treats missing update_meta as an internal error path (“checkpoint-sync row not serveable here”). That means any checkpoint-synced epoch containing snark updates will fail strata_getAccountEpochSummary instead of returning data, breaking the new checkpoint-node parity flow and client RPC behavior for active accounts.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| ServiceType.Strata: sequencer, | ||
| ServiceType.StrataSigner: signer, | ||
| STRATA_FULLNODE_SERVICE_NAME: fullnode, | ||
| ServiceType.StrataCheckpointNode: fullnode, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This environment now registers the fullnode under ServiceType.StrataCheckpointNode, but the same module still exposes STRATA_FULLNODE_SERVICE_NAME = "strata_fullnode" and existing tests fetch the fullnode with that key. Using this env will therefore fail service lookup for those consumers, because the expected strata_fullnode entry is no longer present in the returned services map.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Description
This is in draft now so please refrain from commenting. The reason this is in draft is for myself to review it nicely(I like github's view) and to tag codex.
Type of Change
Notes to Reviewers
Is this PR addressing any specification, design doc or external reference document?
If yes, please add relevant links:
Checklist
Related Issues