-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 311
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
chore: review proof routes #6843
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -3,41 +3,6 @@ import {ChainForkConfig} from "@lodestar/config"; | |
import {ApplicationMethods, FastifyRoutes, createFastifyRoutes} from "../../utils/server/index.js"; | ||
import {Endpoints, getDefinitions} from "../routes/proof.js"; | ||
|
||
// TODO: revisit, do we need still need to override handlers? | ||
|
||
export function getRoutes(config: ChainForkConfig, methods: ApplicationMethods<Endpoints>): FastifyRoutes<Endpoints> { | ||
return createFastifyRoutes(getDefinitions(config), methods); | ||
// const serverRoutes = createFastifyRoutes(definitions, methods); | ||
|
||
// return { | ||
// // Non-JSON routes. Return binary | ||
// getStateProof: { | ||
// ...serverRoutes.getStateProof, | ||
// handler: async (req) => { | ||
// const args = definitions.getStateProof.req.parseReq(req); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. we could implement the same logic in |
||
// const {data} = await methods.getStateProof(args); | ||
// const leaves = (data as CompactMultiProof).leaves; | ||
// const response = new Uint8Array(32 * leaves.length); | ||
// for (let i = 0; i < leaves.length; i++) { | ||
// response.set(leaves[i], i * 32); | ||
// } | ||
// // Fastify 3.x.x will automatically add header `Content-Type: application/octet-stream` if Buffer | ||
// return Buffer.from(response); | ||
// }, | ||
// }, | ||
// getBlockProof: { | ||
// ...serverRoutes.getBlockProof, | ||
// handler: async (req) => { | ||
// const args = definitions.getBlockProof.req.parseReq(req); | ||
// const {data} = await methods.getBlockProof(args); | ||
// const leaves = (data as CompactMultiProof).leaves; | ||
// const response = new Uint8Array(32 * leaves.length); | ||
// for (let i = 0; i < leaves.length; i++) { | ||
// response.set(leaves[i], i * 32); | ||
// } | ||
// // Fastify 3.x.x will automatically add header `Content-Type: application/octet-stream` if Buffer | ||
// return Buffer.from(response); | ||
// }, | ||
// }, | ||
// }; | ||
} |
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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 am asuming this is sufficient and sane enough, same value we use in
lodestar/packages/api/src/beacon/routes/lightclient.ts
Line 20 in 092be93
but I am not that familiar with return values of proof routes, would be good to get eyes on this. Better to have a too high limit, than breaking large proofs by setting it too low.
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.
10k is plenty big, I wanna say we had 512 set as MAX_PROOF_GINDICES at some point.
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.
we have a configurable limit on the server which as you noted is 512. the limit in the ssz type might still be useful to avoid crashing the client
lodestar/packages/beacon-node/src/api/impl/proof/index.ts
Lines 13 to 15 in f21fc3c
preventing server dos vector should be covered