Skip to content

Conversation

@seanmcgary
Copy link
Member

Description

When pruning back large block distances we uncovered some inconsistencies with how data was being pruned that lead to rewards root inconsistencies.

This PR addresses a few tables subject to this and adds some missing blocks(number) foreign key constraints for good measure.

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
  • I have checked my code and corrected any misspellings

@seanmcgary seanmcgary requested a review from serichoi65 June 5, 2025 01:59
@seanmcgary seanmcgary requested a review from a team as a code owner June 5, 2025 01:59
@seanmcgary seanmcgary requested a review from 0xrajath June 5, 2025 01:59
select
distinct(reward_hash) as reward_hash
from (
select reward_hash from combined_rewards where block_number >= @blockNumber
Copy link
Contributor

@serichoi65 serichoi65 Jun 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The first commit must've not had the change from >= to >

… on rewards that were generated as part of a later date
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants