Skip to content
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

Give liveness epoch same "shape" as attester duties #253

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 16, 2022

Conversation

arnetheduck
Copy link
Contributor

@arnetheduck arnetheduck commented Oct 27, 2022

#131 introduced a new liveness endpoint - the request is similar to attester duties in that we query a list of validators for data pertaining to a particular epoch - as such, it seems reasonable to keep the two requests similar in terms of their URL/postdata structure.

ethereum#131 introduced a new
liveness endpoint - the request is similar to attester duties in that we
query a list of attesters for data pertaining to a particular epoch - as
such, it seems reasonable to keep the two requests similar in terms of
their URL/postdata structure.
@arnetheduck
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @paulhauner

@rolfyone
Copy link
Collaborator

my understanding was that it's not really something we can query for anything but current or previous epoch... it seems that the epoch field is just going to result in false unless it's very carefully used...

@arnetheduck
Copy link
Contributor Author

it's not really something we can query for anything but current or previous epoch

it's allowed, just not required - the data could be synthesized from a state for example, or if a client wants to implement "deep" doppelganger protection (ie more than 2 epochs of silence)

@rolfyone
Copy link
Collaborator

rolfyone commented Nov 2, 2022

to me this makes sense overall, just would like to hear from @paulhauner and potentially @mehdi-aouadi to get opinions of people implementing...

@dapplion
Copy link
Collaborator

dapplion commented Nov 4, 2022

Change looks good to me 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@paulhauner paulhauner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

Copy link
Collaborator

@rolfyone rolfyone left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

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.

4 participants