-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 300
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
Implement standard keymanager API - review #3880
Merged
Merged
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
31c64f5
Require importKeystoresPath
dapplion f11081e
Explain KeymanagerServer opts merging
dapplion 87d9bfb
Ensure importKeystoresPath is a directory
dapplion 77c7fb1
Parse slashingProtectionStr to JSON
dapplion 1b92d71
Improve keystore lock logic
dapplion 013859a
Update cli code
dapplion 8b6b0bc
Deduplicate code in keymanager test
dapplion 6a5a45d
Do not write files to absolute path
dapplion 4746c42
Simplify lockFilepath fn
dapplion 2b65387
Fix failing tests in keymanager.test.ts
dadepo File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
@dadepo do you know why JSON.parse() was not necessary if
slashingProtectionStr
is supposed to be a string?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.
That's because the arguments to the function is passed in as an http body and fastify parses it already, so by the time our code calls finds the relevant handler here it is already an object hence no need to use JSON.parse within the function.
I also think the types safety of the function is weaker as it is decoupled from the calling logic in here so at runtime, it is an object that is passed in, which is then attempted to be parsed into JSON
My guess is that If it were a query path or params, then the parsing will be needed.
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.
So can you add a nice long comment explaining this above my change and do conditional parsing?
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 added a comment but I feel that the conditional parsing is not necessary since the endpoint is going to be called with the payload within the body of the request.
Also the snippet you shared won't work. What will work will require changing the type for
slashingProtectionStr: SlashingProtectionData | Record<string, unknown>
and then have the conditional parsing as follows:Which I think is a bit too much since payload will always come within the body