Skip to content

Conversation

@JacekGlen
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

Comment on lines +79 to +80
_stateProvider.Reset();
_storageProvider.Reset();
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know this very well, but doesn't this belong to Teardown? it appears as if we were measuring these Reset's, while I think we shouldn't.

JacekGlen pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2025
* Added eth/69 protocol handler

* Ignore NewBlock and NewBlockHashes messages

* [WIP] Make td in Status message optional

* Handle receipts messages

* Receipt message serialization tests

* Fixed Status message handling

* Disable sending Status, NewBlock and NewBlockHashes messages

* Updated naming

* Fixed Status serialization/deserialization

* Initial handler tests

* Rebase fix

* Updated handler tests

* Fix formatting

* Code cleanup

* Code cleanup

* Added more units tests

* Removed ignored unit tests

* PR fixes

* Tests code cleanup

* Implementation without adding new `RlpBehaviors`

* Code cleanup

* Code cleanup

* Fix messages disposing in tests

* Build fix

* Optimize to avoid creating `StatusMessage` copy

* Updated `StatusMessage` to the latest version

* Do not ignore `NewBlock` and `NewBlockHashes` messages

* Code cleanup

* Set `HeadNumber` on `Status` message

* Code cleanup

* Handling for `BlockRangeUpdate` message

* Potential fix for failing tests

* Enabled eth/69 where needed

* Fixed tests

* Revert removing new block notification

* Fix peers ordering, attempt #1

* Revert "Fix peers ordering, attempt #1"

This reverts commit a0aa23b.

* Allow nullable TD in `IBetterPeerStrategy`

* [WIP] Fix peers ordering attempt NethermindEth#2

* Revert "[WIP] Fix peers ordering attempt NethermindEth#2"

This reverts commit c2b61cf.

* Sending `BlockRangeUpdate`, version 1

* Build fix

* Send block update only for 32+ difference

* Tests update

* Another build fix

* Add eth/69 as part of Merge module

* Fixed missing serializer in test

* Try use `LastBlockBetterPeerStrategy`

* Adjust disconnection logic for no-TD peers

* TODO

* Fixed `BlockRangeUpdate` packet type

* Removed testing code and todo

* Select peers for syncing by last block instead of TD

* Formatting fix

* Fix eth/69 registration location

* Move eth/69 back to default capabilities

* Updated `P2PMessageKey`

* Remove unneeded TODO

* `ToString` override for BlockRangeUpdate

* Fixed adaptive id resolving when sending `BlockRangeUpdate`

* Add IPoSSwitcher.Transitioned event

* fix

* Improvements for BlockRangeUpdate handling

* [WIP] Update receipts encoding to latest spec

* Fixes and updates for receipts encoding

* Test for disconnection on invalid `BlockRangeUpdate`

* Try finalize nullable peer TD

* Code cleanup & build fix

* Code cleanup & build fix

* Fixed latest protocol version when capability is added dynamically

* Try to fix `Block.AccountChanges` not being disposed in case of error

* Fixed most tests

* Revert "Try to fix `Block.AccountChanges` not being disposed in case of error"

This reverts commit 4821110.

* Fixed `Block.AccountChanges` not being disposed in some cases

* Finalize peer strategy transitioning

* Fixed build and tests

* Another tests fix

* Unsubscribe `PoSSwitcher.Transitioned` after firing

* Build/merge fixes

* Removed new strategies

* Some docs for `IPoSSwitcher`

* ~ Test Hive when listening on 0.0.0.0

* ~ Test Hive when listening on 0.0.0.0

* Revert "~ Test Hive when listening on 0.0.0.0"

* PR feedback & build fix

* Test fix

* Build fix

* Log adding eth/69

* ~Log supported capabilities when no-match

* Remove testing code

* Refactor `BlockRangeUpdate` broadcast to avoid modifying existing code

* Fixes

* More fixes, including tests

* Cleanup & fixes

* Cleanup

* Test fix

* Naming

* Another test fix

* Cleanup

* Feedback

* Simplify update frequency limiter

* Try fix failing test via waiting

---------

Co-authored-by: lukasz.rozmej <lukasz.rozmej@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants