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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Validator identities endpoint. #452
Validator identities endpoint. #452
Changes from 4 commits
7e14ed6
757d29a
1c4b504
b8c1792
0358c42
8623ac6
c3b4b87
887120e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
was wondering if we wanna state this here, seems a bit redundant considering we have a more general note about this now since #457 and it's already implied by the response content type + the Accept header is mentioned there as well.
The reason to add the note is that it seems consistent with other endpoint that support SSZ, however could consider cleaning those up a bit
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'd be happy to just merge and cleanup as a separate task...
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.
Why add the
activation_epoch
? It's a curious in-between of no epoch and all epochs in the validator recordThere 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.
It's in case validator index reuse comes in, it will allow us to use (index,public key, activation epoch) as a unique identifier for a validator across all time regardless of reuse.
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.
Index re-use won't come until years down the line if ever. Is it better to do a v2 in 2030 when that happens?
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 was thinking there's no harm having it?