fix segmentation fault in E2E when light-client feature flag is enabled #14699
+226
−29
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type of PR is this?
Bug fix
What does this PR do? Why is it needed?
Prior to this, the E2E tests would run into a segmentation fault at the 12th Epoch (basically
DenebE2EForkEpoch) when the light client feature flag was universally enabled. Going through the logs I saw thatSetFinalizedHeaderwas being called on an emptyLightClientHeaderDeneb. This header was in turn being returned by theBlockToLightClientHeaderfunction which on further inspection showed that it was calling theEmptyExecutionPayload()function which returns an empty payload but NOT an empty payload header. I replaced it with hardcoded values and it works fine now. Also adds more comprehensive tests forBlockToLightClientHeaderWhich issues(s) does this PR fix?
Part of #12991
Other notes for review
Acknowledgements