fix(chaintracker): track Solana slot instead of block height#2274
Open
fix(chaintracker): track Solana slot instead of block height#2274
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
NadavLevi
force-pushed
the
fix/solana-slot-blockheight-mismatch
branch
from
5d33506 to
2a2f52b
Compare
The SVM chain tracker extracted `LastValidBlockHeight` into `seenBlock`, while provider spec parsing (specs/mainnet-1/specs/solana.json) reads `context.slot` for the same "latest block" signal. On Solana these diverge significantly (slot > block_height by the skip rate, ~22M on mainnet), so the consistency pre-validation in relaycore computed lag = seenBlock - endpointLatestBlock ≈ 22M every time, tripping the 50-slot threshold and returning "No pairings available" to clients. Changes: - SVMChainTracker now tracks slot (context.slot) on both sides so the comparison is apples-to-apples. Local vars/helpers renamed for clarity (blockNum -> slot, tryGetSlotFromCache -> waitForSlotVisible) since on Solana the interface's blockNum arg is semantically a slot. - Rename chainlib/svm_chain_tracker.go -> svm_block_hash_retry.go (file was never a tracker — it's a -32004 retry helper for skipped slots; two files with the same basename was misleading). - Wire IsBlockNotAvailableError through the chain-aware error registry (ClassifyError with ChainFamilySolana), replacing the direct numeric code check. Eliminates the theoretical chain-blindness noted in the helper's own documentation. - Drop now-unused SolanaBlockNotAvailableCode constant; the registry is the single source of truth for this code mapping. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
NadavLevi
force-pushed
the
fix/solana-slot-blockheight-mismatch
branch
from
2a2f52b to
f5c81de
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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
1 participant
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.
The SVM chain tracker extracted
LastValidBlockHeightintoseenBlock, while provider spec parsing (specs/mainnet-1/specs/solana.json) readscontext.slotfor the same "latest block" signal. On Solana these diverge significantly (slot > block_height by the skip rate, ~22M on mainnet), so the consistency pre-validation in relaycore computed lag = seenBlock - endpointLatestBlock ≈ 22M every time, tripping the 50-slot threshold and returning "No pairings available" to clients.Track slot on both sides so the comparison is apples-to-apples. Also rename local vars/helper for clarity (blockNum -> slot, tryGetSlotFromCache -> waitForSlotVisible) since on Solana the interface's blockNum arg is semantically a slot.
Description
Closes: #XXXX
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changemainbranchReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...