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

Migrate validator client to clap derive #6300

Merged
merged 53 commits into from
Feb 3, 2025

Conversation

eserilev
Copy link
Collaborator

@eserilev eserilev commented Aug 23, 2024

Issue Addressed

Partially #5900

Proposed Changes

Migrate the validator client cli to clap derive

@eserilev eserilev changed the title Migrate validator manager to clap derive Migrate validator client to clap derive Aug 23, 2024
Comment on lines 270 to 275
if validator_client_config.web3_signer_keep_alive_timeout == 0 {
config.web3_signer_keep_alive_timeout = None
} else {
config.web3_signer_keep_alive_timeout = Some(Duration::from_millis(
validator_client_config.web3_signer_keep_alive_timeout,
));
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@eserilev eserilev Aug 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note the breaking change here. Since I've defined web3_signer_keep_alive_timeout as a u64, null is no longer a valid option. Users will need to use 0 instead.

If this breaking change is too intrusive I can define web3_signer_keep_alive_timeout as a string and we can keep functionality as is.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this is probably ok, not sure if anyone actually remove the web3signer timeout? (cc @michaelsproul)
I've added backwards-incompat label.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah this is probably obscure enough that we would be OK to change it. It's a bit dodgy because it flips the meaning of 0 from "timeout immediately" to "never timeout", but I doubt anyone is using 0

@eserilev eserilev mentioned this pull request Aug 23, 2024
8 tasks
@eserilev eserilev marked this pull request as ready for review August 23, 2024 02:50
@eserilev eserilev added the ready-for-review The code is ready for review label Aug 23, 2024
@eserilev eserilev added work-in-progress PR is a work-in-progress and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels Aug 23, 2024
@eserilev eserilev added ready-for-review The code is ready for review work-in-progress PR is a work-in-progress and removed work-in-progress PR is a work-in-progress ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels Sep 3, 2024
@jimmygchen jimmygchen added the ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. label Nov 7, 2024
Copy link
Member

@jimmygchen jimmygchen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @eserilev, looks great!

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

Maybe we should merge this PR first, as it will conflict:

@michaelsproul michaelsproul added waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. and removed ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. labels Nov 8, 2024
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

Age's PR is merged now. Some conflicts to resolve and then we can merge this.

@eserilev eserilev added ready-for-review The code is ready for review and removed waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. labels Nov 22, 2024
@eserilev
Copy link
Collaborator Author

merge conflicts have been resolved

Copy link
Member

@macladson macladson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@jxs jxs mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2024
@eserilev eserilev added the v7.0.0-beta.0 New release c. Q1 2025 label Jan 16, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@dapplion dapplion left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

All flags match to current unstable

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 25, 2025

This pull request has merge conflicts. Could you please resolve them @eserilev? 🙏

@jimmygchen jimmygchen added ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels Feb 3, 2025
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 3, 2025
Copy link

mergify bot commented Feb 3, 2025

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: checks failed.

The merge conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks:

You should look at the reason for the failure and decide if the pull request needs to be fixed or if you want to requeue it.

If you want to requeue this pull request, you need to post a comment with the text: @mergifyio requeue

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 7e4b27c into sigp:unstable Feb 3, 2025
32 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backwards-incompat Backwards-incompatible API change code-quality ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. v7.0.0-beta.0 New release c. Q1 2025
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants