## Proposed Changes
Two tiny updates to satisfy Clippy 1.68
Plus refactoring of the `http_api` into less complex types so the compiler can chew and digest them more easily.
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <michael@sigmaprime.io>
## Issue Addressed
Cleans up all the remnants of 4844 in capella. This makes sure when 4844 is reviewed there is nothing we are missing because it got included here
## Proposed Changes
drop a bomb on every 4844 thing
## Additional Info
Merge process I did (locally) is as follows:
- squash merge to produce one commit
- in new branch off unstable with the squashed commit create a `git revert HEAD` commit
- merge that new branch onto 4844 with `--strategy ours`
- compare local 4844 to remote 4844 and make sure the diff is empty
- enjoy
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <paul@paulhauner.com>
* Modify comment to only include 4844
Capella only modifies per epoch processing by adding
`process_historical_summaries_update`, which does not change the realization of
justification or finality.
Whilst 4844 does not currently modify realization, the spec is not yet final
enough to say that it never will.
* Clarify address change verification comment
The verification of the address change doesn't really have anything to do with
the current epoch. I think this was just a copy-paste from a function like
`verify_exit`.
* Add extra encoding/decoding tests
* Remove TODO
The method LGTM
* Remove `FreeAttestation`
This is an ancient relic, I'm surprised it still existed!
* Add paranoid check for eip4844 code
This is not technically necessary, but I think it's nice to be explicit about
EIP4844 consensus code for the time being.
* Reduce big-O complexity of address change pruning
I'm not sure this is *actually* useful, but it might come in handy if we see a
ton of address changes at the fork boundary. I know the devops team have been
testing with ~100k changes, so maybe this will help in that case.
* Revert "Reduce big-O complexity of address change pruning"
This reverts commit e7d93e6cc7cf1b92dd5a9e1966ce47d4078121eb.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Description
We were missing an edge case when checking to see if a block is a descendant of the finalized checkpoint. This edge case is described for one of the tests in this PR:
a119edc739/consensus/proto_array/src/proto_array_fork_choice.rs (L1018-L1047)
This bug presented itself in the following mainnet log:
```
Jan 26 15:12:42.841 ERRO Unable to validate attestation error: MissingBeaconState(0x7c30cb80ec3d4ec624133abfa70e4c6cfecfca456bfbbbff3393e14e5b20bf25), peer_id: 16Uiu2HAm8RPRciXJYtYc5c3qtCRdrZwkHn2BXN3XP1nSi1gxHYit, type: "unaggregated", slot: Slot(5660161), beacon_block_root: 0x4a45e59da7cb9487f4836c83bdd1b741b4f31c67010c7ae343fa6771b3330489
```
Here the BN is rejecting an attestation because of a "missing beacon state". Whilst it was correct to reject the attestation, it should have rejected it because it attests to a block that conflicts with finality rather than claiming that the database is inconsistent.
The block that this attestation points to (`0x4a45`) is block `C` in the above diagram. It is a non-canonical block in the first slot of an epoch that conflicts with the finalized checkpoint. Due to our lazy pruning of proto array, `0x4a45` was still present in proto-array. Our missed edge-case in [`ForkChoice::is_descendant_of_finalized`](38514c07f2/consensus/fork_choice/src/fork_choice.rs (L1375-L1379)) would have indicated to us that the block is a descendant of the finalized block. Therefore, we would have accepted the attestation thinking that it attests to a descendant of the finalized *checkpoint*.
Since we didn't have the shuffling for this erroneously processed block, we attempted to read its state from the database. This failed because we prune states from the database by keeping track of the tips of the chain and iterating back until we find a finalized block. This would have deleted `C` from the database, hence the `MissingBeaconState` error.
