Skip to content

fix(nano): state API regression when requesting dict fields#1507

Merged
jansegre merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
fix/nano/state-api-container-field-error
Dec 8, 2025
Merged

fix(nano): state API regression when requesting dict fields#1507
jansegre merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
fix/nano/state-api-container-field-error

Conversation

@jansegre
Copy link
Member

@jansegre jansegre commented Dec 8, 2025

Motivation

The regression was caused by #1500 and basically causes an error at the whole request instead of just on the offending field.

Acceptance Criteria

  • Handle the TypeError instead of letting it fail the whole request
  • Add tests that cover the regression and the other fields that weren't affected, those should be dealt with in the future

Checklist

  • If you are requesting a merge into master, confirm this code is production-ready and can be included in future releases as soon as it gets merged

@jansegre jansegre requested review from glevco and msbrogli December 8, 2025 13:49
@jansegre jansegre self-assigned this Dec 8, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 8, 2025

🐰 Bencher Report

Branchfix/nano/state-api-container-field-error
Testbedubuntu-22.04
Click to view all benchmark results
BenchmarkLatencyBenchmark Result
minutes (m)
(Result Δ%)
Lower Boundary
minutes (m)
(Limit %)
Upper Boundary
minutes (m)
(Limit %)
sync-v2 (up to 20000 blocks)📈 view plot
🚷 view threshold
1.69 m
(-2.60%)Baseline: 1.73 m
1.56 m
(92.40%)
2.08 m
(81.17%)
🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

@jansegre jansegre moved this from Todo to In Progress (Done) in Hathor Network Dec 8, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 8, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.21%. Comparing base (dd1e404) to head (b590028).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1507      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.27%   86.21%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         440      440              
  Lines       34055    34058       +3     
  Branches     5326     5327       +1     
==========================================
- Hits        29381    29364      -17     
- Misses       3657     3670      +13     
- Partials     1017     1024       +7     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

The regression was cause by #1500 and basically causes an error at the
whole request instead of just on the offending field.
@jansegre jansegre force-pushed the fix/nano/state-api-container-field-error branch from b590028 to 15bad95 Compare December 8, 2025 14:58
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Progress (Done) to In Review (WIP) in Hathor Network Dec 8, 2025
@jansegre jansegre merged commit ab8add7 into master Dec 8, 2025
4 of 7 checks passed
@jansegre jansegre deleted the fix/nano/state-api-container-field-error branch December 8, 2025 16:03
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Review (WIP) to Waiting to be deployed in Hathor Network Dec 8, 2025
@jansegre jansegre mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2025
2 tasks
@jansegre jansegre moved this from Waiting to be deployed to Done in Hathor Network Dec 8, 2025
@jansegre jansegre moved this from Done to Waiting to be deployed in Hathor Network Dec 8, 2025
@jansegre jansegre moved this from Waiting to be deployed to Done in Hathor Network Dec 8, 2025
@jansegre jansegre mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2025
2 tasks
@jansegre jansegre mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2026
2 tasks
@jansegre jansegre mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2026
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Archived in project

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants