-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20.2k
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
eth/downloader: purge pre-merge sync code #29281
eth/downloader: purge pre-merge sync code #29281
Conversation
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.
Looking good!
func TestFailedSyncProgress68Snap(t *testing.T) { testFailedSyncProgress(t, eth.ETH68, SnapSync) } | ||
func TestFailedSyncProgress68Light(t *testing.T) { testFailedSyncProgress(t, eth.ETH68, LightSync) } | ||
|
||
func testFailedSyncProgress(t *testing.T, protocol uint, mode SyncMode) { |
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.
Please restore this too.
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'm not sure how to adapt/replace this test case. Because the head is trusted, a faulty chain/peer cannot cause the sync cycle to fail.
9173271
to
218008b
Compare
Whoops. There was one failing test that I had forgotten to fix. I've done that and rebased this. Should be okay to merge now. |
9a30230
to
1d6956a
Compare
This PR removes pre-merge sync logic from the downloader. Now-irrelevant tests are removed and others have been updated.
This PR removes pre-merge sync logic from the downloader. Now-irrelevant tests are removed and others have been updated.
This PR removes pre-merge sync logic from the downloader. Now-irrelevant tests are removed and others have been updated. Fork tests are currently failing due to the issue identified/addressed in #29358