Skip to content

all: add debug_syncTarget as an API method #32159

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jwasinger
Copy link
Contributor

@jwasinger jwasinger commented Jul 7, 2025

changes:

  • Introduce SyncTarget method on the debug API, reusing the same code path as the --synctarget flag.
  • rename FullSyncTester -> SyncOverride to better reflect its purpose.
  • SyncOverride is now a member on Ethereum. Move it into the eth package to prevent a cyclical import (eth->catalyst->eth).

@jwasinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

depends on #32149 being merged first.

@jwasinger jwasinger force-pushed the debug-sync-target branch from a34a0e0 to cc7bc75 Compare July 8, 2025 08:15
@jwasinger jwasinger changed the title all: introduce debug_syncTarget all: add debug_syncTarget as an API method Jul 8, 2025
@rjl493456442
Copy link
Member

Originally this feature is only used for development purpose, which assumes there is no CL attached.
If we want to provide it to users, we need to make sure the race between the engine API and this one
is properly handled.

@jwasinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

My understanding is that there is the expectation that this is used during an adverse network event where the CL can't track the right chain, and that users (us mostly) would be expected to disconnect the CL and manually set the sync target to keep up with whatever we deem the correct chain to be.

@jwasinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

But we could also expand the scope of this to play safely with the engine API. I'm not sure atm what that will entail.

rjl493456442 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2025
@rjl493456442
Copy link
Member

Close it in favor of #32177

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.

2 participants