fix(chaintracker): retry previous slots on Solana block-not-available… by NadavLevi · Pull Request #2254 · lavanet/lava

NadavLevi · 2026-03-29T10:31:14Z

User description

… (-32004)

Solana slots can be skipped or not yet propagated, causing -32004 errors during block hash fetching. This adds a two-phase retry mechanism for Solana-family chains in both provider and consumer chain fetchers: first, retry the same slot up to 2 times with a 150ms delay (propagation delays); then, fall back to up to 3 previous slots (permanently skipped slots).

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...

read the contribution guide
included the correct type prefix in the PR title, you can find examples of the prefixes below:
confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
targeted the main branch
provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
included the necessary unit and integration tests
updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code
confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers 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...

confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage

Generated description

Below is a concise technical summary of the changes proposed in this PR:
Add a Solana-specific two-phase retry around block hash fetchers so that ChainFetcher.FetchBlockHashByNum and the router’s EndpointChainFetcher fall back to the same slot or recent preceding slots when nodes surface -32004 errors. Tighten endpoint health tracking by making MarkUnhealthy/ResetHealth report state transitions and only emit metrics when an endpoint actually changes enabled state.

Topic Details

Solana fetch retry

Implement Solana-specific retries via FetchBlockHashWithSolanaRetry, add error classification/tests, and reroute slot fetches through the helper to cover both ChainFetcher and router-level fetchers.

Modified files (7)

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go
protocol/chainlib/svm_chain_tracker.go
protocol/chainlib/svm_chain_tracker_test.go
protocol/common/errors.go
protocol/common/svm.go
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher_test.go

Latest Contributors(2)

User	Commit	Date
[email protected]	perf(protocol): optimi...	February 01, 2026
NadavLevi	fix: cap string len on...	January 15, 2026

Endpoint health

Refine endpoint health tracking by returning booleans from MarkUnhealthy/ResetHealth and only updating smart-router metrics when the enabled state actually flips.

Modified files (2)

protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/rpcsmartrouter_server.go

Latest Contributors(2)

User	Commit	Date
NadavLevi	feat(metrics): align p...	March 25, 2026
[email protected]	fix: make relay retry ...	March 01, 2026

This pull request is reviewed by Baz. Review like a pro on (Baz).

qodo-code-review · 2026-03-29T10:31:32Z

Review Summary by Qodo

Add Solana block-not-available retry mechanism for skipped slots

🐞 Bug fix

Walkthroughs

Description

• Add retry mechanism for Solana block-not-available (-32004) errors
  - Retries up to 5 previous slots when endpoint returns -32004
  - Handles skipped slots and propagation delays on Solana/SVM chains
• Implement block-not-available detection in both provider and consumer fetchers
  - Extract response data for error inspection in chain_fetcher.go
  - Add JSON-RPC error code parsing utility function
• Add comprehensive test coverage for error detection and chain identification
• Enhance logging for endpoint health tracking and retry attempts

Diagram

flowchart LR
  A["Fetch Block Hash Request"] --> B{"Is Solana Family?"}
  B -->|Yes| C["Try Current Block"]
  B -->|No| D["Single Attempt"]
  C --> E{"Success?"}
  E -->|Yes| F["Return Hash"]
  E -->|No| G{"Block Not Available -32004?"}
  G -->|Yes| H["Retry Previous Slot<br/>Max 5 Retries"]
  G -->|No| I["Return Error"]
  H --> E
  D --> E
  F --> J["Result"]
  I --> J

File Changes

1. protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go 🐞 Bug fix +101/-7

Implement Solana block retry with error detection

• Add constants for Solana block-not-available error code (-32004) and max retry count (5)
• Refactor FetchBlockHashByNum to implement retry loop for Solana-family chains
• Extract single block fetch logic into new fetchSingleBlockHashByNum helper method
• Add isBlockNotAvailableError function to detect -32004 errors from JSON-RPC responses
• Add isSolanaFamily function to identify Solana/SVM chains (SOLANA, SOLANAT, KOII, KOIIT)
• Update error returns to include response data for error inspection

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go

2. protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go 🐞 Bug fix +124/-12

Add Solana block retry logic to endpoint chain fetcher

• Add constants for Solana block-not-available error code and max retry count
• Refactor FetchBlockHashByNum with retry loop for Solana-family chains
• Extract single block fetch logic into new fetchSingleBlockHash helper method
• Add isBlockNotAvailableError function to parse JSON-RPC error responses
• Add isSolanaFamily function for chain identification
• Enhance logging with endpoint URL and attempt tracking
• Update method signatures to return response data for error inspection

protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go

3. protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go ✨ Enhancement +7/-0

Enhance endpoint health tracking logging

• Add detailed logging to MarkUnhealthy method with endpoint address, refusal count, and threshold
• Log whether endpoint will be disabled based on connection attempt threshold
• Include direct RPC flag in warning output for better debugging

protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go

View more (1)

4. protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher_test.go 🧪 Tests +99/-0

Add unit tests for error detection and chain identification

• Add comprehensive test suite for isBlockNotAvailableError function with 10 test cases
• Test Solana -32004 error detection, other error codes, success responses, and edge cases
• Add test suite for isSolanaFamily function covering all supported chains and non-Solana chains
• Verify case-sensitivity and empty chain ID handling

protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher_test.go

qodo-code-review · 2026-03-29T10:31:34Z

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (3) 📘 Rule violations (2) 📎 Requirement gaps (0)

1. LavaFormatWarning missing gofmt spacing 📘 Rule violation ⚙ Maintainability

Description

The new MarkUnhealthy log call uses "MarkUnhealthy called",nil, (missing space after the comma),
which indicates the file is not gofmt/goimports clean. This violates the repo requirement to keep Go
code formatted consistently.

Code

protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go[R237-243]

+	utils.LavaFormatWarning("MarkUnhealthy called",nil,
+		utils.LogAttr("endpoint", e.NetworkAddress),
+		utils.LogAttr("refusals", e.ConnectionRefusals),
+		utils.LogAttr("threshold", MaxConsecutiveConnectionAttempts),
+		utils.LogAttr("is_direct_rpc", e.IsDirectRPC()),
+		utils.LogAttr("will_disable", e.ConnectionRefusals >= MaxConsecutiveConnectionAttempts),
+	)

Evidence

PR Compliance ID 1 requires Go files to be gofmt/goimports formatted; the added call shows non-gofmt
formatting (missing space after comma) on the modified lines.

AGENTS.md
protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go[234-243]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
The added `utils.LavaFormatWarning` call in `MarkUnhealthy()` is not gofmt-formatted (e.g., `"MarkUnhealthy called",nil,` should be `"MarkUnhealthy called", nil,`).

## Issue Context
Repo compliance requires Go code to be gofmt/goimports clean.

## Fix Focus Areas
- protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go[234-243]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

2. Block zero skipped 🐞 Bug ✓ Correctness

Description

FetchBlockHashByNum breaks out when currentBlock <= 0, so a request for block/slot 0 is never
attempted and instead returns a generic “retries exhausted” error. ChainTracker can compute
blockNumToFetch := latestBlock - idx (reaching 0 when blocksToSave > latestBlock), so this can fail
bootstrap/short-height scenarios and makes Solana slot 0 unreachable.

Code

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go[R488-492]

+	for attempt := 0; attempt < maxAttempts; attempt++ {
+		if currentBlock <= 0 {
+			break
+		}
+

Evidence
Both fetchers abort before attempting block/slot 0. ChainTracker’s backwards scan can legitimately
request 0 (latestBlock-idx), and Solana’s GET_BLOCK_BY_NUM uses getBlock(slot), where slot 0 is a
valid value.
protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go[467-527]
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[165-221]
protocol/chaintracker/chain_tracker.go[254-273]
specs/mainnet-1/specs/solana.json[980-1004]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
`FetchBlockHashByNum` stops retries when `currentBlock <= 0`, which prevents fetching slot/block `0` entirely and can return a misleading “retries exhausted” error without ever attempting a request.

### Issue Context
This affects both provider-side (`chainlib.ChainFetcher`) and consumer/direct-RPC (`rpcsmartrouter.EndpointChainFetcher`) implementations. ChainTracker can request block 0 during backwards reads (`latestBlock - idx`).

### Fix Focus Areas
- Change the guard to allow `0` (e.g., `currentBlock < 0`), and explicitly handle negative `blockNum` as invalid.
- Ensure the “exhausted” path returns/wraps the last real error when available (avoid returning an error that drops the cause).

### Fix Focus Areas (code)
- protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go[479-528]
- protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[165-222]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

3. Endpoint health data race 🐞 Bug ⛯ Reliability

Description

Endpoint.MarkUnhealthy mutates ConnectionRefusals and Enabled without taking endpoint.mu even though
the struct documents mu protects these fields, and it is invoked from concurrent request paths. The
newly added unconditional LavaFormatWarning in MarkUnhealthy will also emit warning logs (and
allocate an error) on every call, amplifying impact under failure bursts.

Code

protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go[R235-246]

func (e *Endpoint) MarkUnhealthy() {
	e.ConnectionRefusals++
+	utils.LavaFormatWarning("MarkUnhealthy called",nil,
+		utils.LogAttr("endpoint", e.NetworkAddress),
+		utils.LogAttr("refusals", e.ConnectionRefusals),
+		utils.LogAttr("threshold", MaxConsecutiveConnectionAttempts),
+		utils.LogAttr("is_direct_rpc", e.IsDirectRPC()),
+		utils.LogAttr("will_disable", e.ConnectionRefusals >= MaxConsecutiveConnectionAttempts),
+	)
	if e.ConnectionRefusals >= MaxConsecutiveConnectionAttempts {
		e.Enabled = false
		utils.LavaFormatWarning("disabled unhealthy endpoint", nil,

Evidence
Endpoint declares mu protects ConnectionRefusals/Enabled, and other code paths use
endpoint.mu.Lock() when updating these fields. Smart router request handling calls MarkUnhealthy
during failures, so concurrent invocations are expected. LavaFormatWarning constructs/returns an
error even when the caller ignores it, adding overhead for every MarkUnhealthy call.
protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go[188-252]
protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go[703-810]
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/rpcsmartrouter_server.go[1838-1844]
utils/lavalog.go[423-460]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
`Endpoint.MarkUnhealthy` updates `ConnectionRefusals` and `Enabled` without synchronization, despite `Endpoint.mu` being documented as the guard for these fields. It can be called concurrently from request-handling code, causing data races and inconsistent endpoint disabling.

### Issue Context
This PR also adds an unconditional `LavaFormatWarning("MarkUnhealthy called", ...)` inside `MarkUnhealthy`, which increases log volume and per-call allocations during error bursts.

### Fix Focus Areas
- Add `e.mu.Lock()`/`e.mu.Unlock()` around `ConnectionRefusals`/`Enabled` mutations and any reads used for log fields.
- Consider reducing log volume (e.g., log only when the endpoint transitions to disabled, or when refusals crosses the threshold).

### Fix Focus Areas (code)
- protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go[234-252]
- protocol/rpcsmartrouter/rpcsmartrouter_server.go[1838-1861]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

4. Tests not TestX_Y named 📘 Rule violation ⚙ Maintainability

Description

New tests are named TestIsBlockNotAvailableError and TestIsSolanaFamily, which do not follow the
required TestComponent_Scenario naming convention. This reduces consistency and makes test intent
harder to scan in large suites.

Code

protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher_test.go[R10-76]

+func TestIsBlockNotAvailableError(t *testing.T) {
+	tests := []struct {
+		name     string
+		response []byte
+		expected bool
+	}{
+		{
+			name:     "Solana -32004 block not available",
+			response: []byte(`{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"error":{"code":-32004,"message":"Block not available for slot 12345"}}`),
+			expected: true,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "Solana -32004 minimal error",
+			response: []byte(`{"error":{"code":-32004}}`),
+			expected: true,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "different error code -32001",
+			response: []byte(`{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"error":{"code":-32001,"message":"Block cleaned up"}}`),
+			expected: false,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "different error code -32007",
+			response: []byte(`{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"error":{"code":-32007,"message":"Slot skipped"}}`),
+			expected: false,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "success response with result",
+			response: []byte(`{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"result":{"blockhash":"abc123","slot":100}}`),
+			expected: false,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "empty response",
+			response: []byte{},
+			expected: false,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "nil response",
+			response: nil,
+			expected: false,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "invalid JSON",
+			response: []byte(`not json`),
+			expected: false,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "no error field",
+			response: []byte(`{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1}`),
+			expected: false,
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "EVM -32004 method not supported (same code different chain)",
+			response: []byte(`{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"error":{"code":-32004,"message":"Method not supported"}}`),
+			expected: true, // The function only checks the code, chain filtering is done by the caller
+		},
+	}
+
+	for _, tt := range tests {
+		t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
+			result := isBlockNotAvailableError(tt.response)
+			assert.Equal(t, tt.expected, result)
+		})
+	}
+}
+
+func TestIsSolanaFamily(t *testing.T) {

Evidence
PR Compliance ID 5 requires test functions to be named TestComponent_Scenario; the newly added
test function names omit the underscore-based convention.
AGENTS.md
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher_test.go[10-99]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
Test function names do not follow the required `TestComponent_Scenario` pattern.

## Issue Context
The repo standard expects underscore-separated test names for consistency.

## Fix Focus Areas
- protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher_test.go[10-99]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

5. Duplicated Solana retry helpers 🐞 Bug ⚙ Maintainability

Description

Solana-family detection and block-not-available retry constants/helpers are duplicated in chainlib
and rpcsmartrouter, while ChainTracker also hard-codes the same Solana-family list. This can drift
over time and create inconsistent behavior depending on which fetcher/tracker path is used.

Code

protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[R19-28]

+const (
+	// maxBlockNotAvailableRetries is the maximum number of previous slots to try
+	// when a Solana endpoint returns -32004 ("Block not available for slot X").
+	// This handles both propagation delays and skipped slots.
+	maxBlockNotAvailableRetries = 5
+
+	// solanaBlockNotAvailableCode is the Solana JSON-RPC error code for
+	// "Block not available for slot X".
+	solanaBlockNotAvailableCode = -32004
+)

Evidence
The same Solana-family list and constants appear in multiple packages (two fetchers plus
ChainTracker’s switch). Without a shared source of truth, future edits can easily update one list
and miss others.
protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go[25-36]
protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go[749-774]
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[19-28]
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[285-301]
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[377-387]
protocol/chaintracker/chain_tracker.go[669-673]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
Solana retry constants and helpers (`isSolanaFamily`, `isBlockNotAvailableError`, retry counts) are duplicated across packages, and the Solana-family list is also duplicated in ChainTracker selection logic. This increases the chance of divergent behavior as chains are added/renamed.

### Issue Context
Current code is consistent, but future updates (e.g., adding a new Solana/SVM chain ID) must be made in 3 places.

### Fix Focus Areas
- Extract Solana-family detection + retry constants into a shared package/module and reuse from both fetchers and ChainTracker.

### Fix Focus Areas (code)
- protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go[25-36]
- protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go[749-774]
- protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[19-28]
- protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[285-301]
- protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go[377-387]
- protocol/chaintracker/chain_tracker.go[669-673]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

ⓘ The new review experience is currently in Beta. Learn more

protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go

protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go

codecov · 2026-03-29T10:37:04Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 28.87324% with 101 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go	0.00%	41 Missing ⚠️
protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go	22.22%	27 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go	0.00%	20 Missing ⚠️
protocol/common/svm.go	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/rpcsmartrouter_server.go	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
protocol/chainlib/svm_chain_tracker.go	94.28%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Flag	Coverage Δ
consensus	`8.70% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
protocol	`33.96% <28.87%> (-0.05%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
protocol/common/errors.go	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
protocol/chainlib/svm_chain_tracker.go	`94.28% <94.28%> (ø)`
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/rpcsmartrouter_server.go	`13.53% <0.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
protocol/common/svm.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go	`72.72% <0.00%> (-2.04%)`	⬇️
protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go	`23.77% <22.22%> (-0.43%)`	⬇️
protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go

protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher_test.go

github-actions · 2026-03-29T10:51:33Z

Test Results

0 tests ±0 0 ✅ ±0 0s ⏱️ ±0s
0 suites ±0 0 💤 ±0
7 files ±0 0 ❌ ±0

Results for commit eecc870. ± Comparison against base commit 6b5b690.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go

protocol/chainlib/svm_chain_tracker_test.go

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go

…2004) Solana slots can be skipped or not yet propagated, causing -32004 errors during block hash fetching. This adds a two-phase retry mechanism for Solana-family chains in both provider and consumer chain fetchers: first, retry the same slot up to 2 times with a 150ms delay (propagation delays); then, fall back to up to 3 previous slots (permanently skipped slots).

pull-request-size bot added the size/L label Mar 29, 2026

github-actions bot added C:protocol Team:Protocol labels Mar 29, 2026

qodo-code-review bot reviewed Mar 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

protocol/lavasession/consumer_types.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

baz-reviewer bot reviewed Mar 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

protocol/rpcsmartrouter/endpoint_chain_fetcher_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

baz-reviewer bot approved these changes Mar 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

NadavLevi force-pushed the fix/solana-block-not-available-retry branch from ce72aac to 008f163 Compare March 29, 2026 12:06

baz-reviewer bot reviewed Mar 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

baz-reviewer bot approved these changes Mar 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

NadavLevi force-pushed the fix/solana-block-not-available-retry branch from 008f163 to 8f057c7 Compare March 29, 2026 15:14

baz-reviewer bot reviewed Mar 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go Show resolved Hide resolved

NadavLevi force-pushed the fix/solana-block-not-available-retry branch from 8f057c7 to 527933a Compare March 29, 2026 16:05

baz-reviewer bot approved these changes Mar 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

NadavLevi force-pushed the fix/solana-block-not-available-retry branch from 527933a to 3808812 Compare March 29, 2026 16:30

baz-reviewer bot reviewed Mar 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

protocol/chainlib/svm_chain_tracker_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

protocol/chainlib/svm_chain_tracker_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

NadavLevi force-pushed the fix/solana-block-not-available-retry branch from 3808812 to aca549b Compare March 30, 2026 09:57

baz-reviewer bot reviewed Mar 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go Show resolved Hide resolved

baz-reviewer bot approved these changes Mar 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

NadavLevi force-pushed the fix/solana-block-not-available-retry branch from aca549b to bf8de2b Compare March 31, 2026 09:52

pull-request-size bot added size/XL and removed size/L labels Mar 31, 2026

baz-reviewer bot reviewed Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

protocol/chainlib/chain_fetcher.go Show resolved Hide resolved

baz-reviewer bot approved these changes Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

NadavLevi force-pushed the fix/solana-block-not-available-retry branch from bf8de2b to eecc870 Compare March 31, 2026 13:02

NadavLevi requested a review from nimrod-teich March 31, 2026 14:33

NadavLevi requested review from Tomelia1999 and avitenzer March 31, 2026 14:33

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix(chaintracker): retry previous slots on Solana block-not-available…#2254

fix(chaintracker): retry previous slots on Solana block-not-available…#2254
NadavLevi wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
fix/solana-block-not-available-retry

NadavLevi commented Mar 29, 2026 •

edited by baz-reviewer bot

Loading

Uh oh!

qodo-code-review bot commented Mar 29, 2026

Uh oh!

qodo-code-review bot commented Mar 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Conversation

NadavLevi commented Mar 29, 2026 • edited by baz-reviewer bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

User description

Description

Author Checklist

Reviewers Checklist

Generated description

Uh oh!

qodo-code-review bot commented Mar 29, 2026

Review Summary by Qodo

Walkthroughs

File Changes

Uh oh!

qodo-code-review bot commented Mar 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Review by Qodo

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Test Results

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

NadavLevi commented Mar 29, 2026 •

edited by baz-reviewer bot

Loading

qodo-code-review bot commented Mar 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Mar 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading