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

web3Signer: set header "Accept: application/json" as we expect json in the response #5692

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 6, 2024

Conversation

lrusak
Copy link
Contributor

@lrusak lrusak commented May 2, 2024

Issue Addressed

#5691

Proposed Changes

This PR sets the request header for the web3signer to Accept: application/json. This is required to indicate to a remote signer that json is the acceptable return type (instead of plain/text)

Additional Info

the web3signer api indicates that both application/json and text/plain are acceptable response types for signing requests.

The web3signer handler in lighthouse requires a json response. Setting the header "Accept: application/json" indicates to the web3signer that json is an acceptable response.

…n the response

The web3signer handler in lighthouse requires a json response.
Setting the header "Accept: application/json" indicates to the web3signer that json is an acceptable response.

Signed-off-by: Lukas Rusak <lorusak@gmail.com>
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented May 2, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

Nice find, thanks!

If you don't mind filling in the contributor agreement, we can get this merged soon!

@michaelsproul michaelsproul added the waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. label May 2, 2024
@lrusak
Copy link
Contributor Author

lrusak commented May 2, 2024

Nice find, thanks!

If you don't mind filling in the contributor agreement, we can get this merged soon!

Signed 😊

@lrusak
Copy link
Contributor Author

lrusak commented May 2, 2024

I pushed a fixup to make the ci happy

@michaelsproul michaelsproul added ready-for-review The code is ready for review low-hanging-fruit Easy to resolve, get it before someone else does! v5.2.0 Q2 2024 and removed waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. labels May 3, 2024
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

thanks, will merge once CI passes

@lrusak
Copy link
Contributor Author

lrusak commented May 3, 2024

thanks, will merge once CI passes

It looks like there are a couple unrelated failures. Should I just squash the fixup?

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

Don't worry about it, I'll merge your PR in a batch with this one which should fix the Clippy failure:

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

Some of the other failures (the Windows one) are just flakiness. I'll kick the CI server to get it to try harder 🤣

@michaelsproul michaelsproul added ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels May 3, 2024
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@Mergifyio queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 3, 2024

queue

🛑 Command queue cancelled because of a new queue command with different arguments

michaelsproul added a commit that referenced this pull request May 3, 2024
…n the response (#5692)

Squashed commit of the following:

commit 92f5ad0
Author: Lukas Rusak <lorusak@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu May 2 15:53:58 2024 -0700

    fixup! web3Signer: set header "Accept: application/json" as we expect json in the response

commit 8965009
Author: Lukas Rusak <lorusak@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed May 1 21:16:27 2024 -0700

    web3Signer: set header "Accept: application/json" as we expect json in the response

    The web3signer handler in lighthouse requires a json response.
    Setting the header "Accept: application/json" indicates to the web3signer that json is an acceptable response.

    Signed-off-by: Lukas Rusak <lorusak@gmail.com>
@michaelsproul michaelsproul mentioned this pull request May 3, 2024
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@Mergifyio requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 3, 2024

requeue

❌ This pull request head commit has not been previously disembarked from queue.

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@Mergifyio requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 3, 2024

requeue

❌ This pull request head commit has not been previously disembarked from queue.

@jimmygchen
Copy link
Member

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 3, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

Pull request #5692 has been dequeued by a dequeue command.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 3, 2024
@jimmygchen
Copy link
Member

@mergify unqueue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 3, 2024

unqueue

✅ The pull request has been removed from the queue default

@jimmygchen
Copy link
Member

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 3, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

Pull request #5692 has been dequeued by a dequeue command.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

@lrusak
Copy link
Contributor Author

lrusak commented May 3, 2024

Anything else I can help out with here?

@jimmygchen
Copy link
Member

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 3, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

Pull request #5692 has been dequeued by a dequeue command.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@Mergifyio requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 5, 2024

requeue

✅ This pull request will be re-embarked automatically

The followup queue command will be automatically executed to re-embark the pull request

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 5, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

The queue conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2024
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

Sorry, our CI seems to be particularly flaky.

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@Mergifyio requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 5, 2024

requeue

✅ This pull request will be re-embarked automatically

The followup queue command will be automatically executed to re-embark the pull request

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 5, 2024

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

The queue conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2024
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

https://github.com/Mergifyio requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 6, 2024

requeue

✅ This pull request will be re-embarked automatically

The followup queue command will be automatically executed to re-embark the pull request

Copy link

mergify bot commented May 6, 2024

queue

✅ The pull request has been merged automatically

The pull request has been merged automatically at da9d386

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 6, 2024
@mergify mergify bot merged commit da9d386 into sigp:unstable May 6, 2024
24 of 27 checks passed
@lrusak
Copy link
Contributor Author

lrusak commented Jun 1, 2024

Can this be included in #5664?

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@lrusak it already is

@lrusak
Copy link
Contributor Author

lrusak commented Jun 2, 2024

@lrusak it already is

Hmm ok, I thought I saw it in there before but now I don't see the commit there and I don't see the change in the change list. Maybe it got dropped accidentally?

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@lrusak Your PR got merged to unstable. The v5.2.0 PR just shows new commits on top of unstable. If you do a git log on that branch you'll see it

@lrusak
Copy link
Contributor Author

lrusak commented Jun 3, 2024

@lrusak Your PR got merged to unstable. The v5.2.0 PR just shows new commits on top of unstable. If you do a git log on that branch you'll see it

ah ok, sorry for the noise!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
low-hanging-fruit Easy to resolve, get it before someone else does! ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. v5.2.0 Q2 2024
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants