chore: remove unused reth flag

[chatton]

Overview

ref evstack/ev-node#2765

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated container image version to pr-2765
  • Disabled a node container startup feature flag

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Two configuration changes to the Reth Docker container setup: the default image version is updated from "latest" to "pr-2765", and the ev-reth feature flag is removed from node container startup arguments.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Reth Docker Configuration framework/docker/evstack/reth/config.go	DefaultImage version updated from "latest" to "pr-2765"
Reth Node Startup framework/docker/evstack/reth/node.go	Removed --ev-reth.enable flag from container startup arguments

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

A version bumps to pr-2765 so true, 🐰
The ev-reth flag bids adieu,
Configuration flows in Reth's gentle way,
Docker containers updated today! 🐳

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title Check	❓ Inconclusive	The PR title "chore: remove unused reth flag" accurately describes one of the changes in the changeset—the removal of the --ev-reth.enable flag from node container startup arguments. However, the pull request also includes a second change in config.go where the DefaultImage version is updated from "latest" to "pr-2765". The PR description is minimal and does not clarify whether this version change is a primary objective or an incidental side effect, making it unclear whether the title fully captures the changeset scope or is appropriately focused on the main change.	Clarify the PR description to explain whether the version change to "pr-2765" is a primary objective or a secondary/incidental change. If the version update is a key part of the change, consider updating the title to reflect both modifications (e.g., "chore: remove unused reth flag and update reth version"). If it is incidental, the PR description should document this to confirm the title appropriately represents the main intent.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch cian/remove-unused-flag

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f695705 and 561165c.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• framework/docker/evstack/reth/config.go (1 hunks)
• framework/docker/evstack/reth/node.go (0 hunks)

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• framework/docker/evstack/reth/node.go

🧰 Additional context used

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

framework/docker/evstack/reth/config.go (1)

framework/docker/container/image.go (1)

• Image (11-15)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: test
• GitHub Check: Analyze (go)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

framework/docker/evstack/reth/config.go (1)

34-35: Let me search for details on the upstream PR to better understand the context.

Let me search more specifically for that PR.

Based on the verification attempts, I cannot conclusively verify the image tag existence (docker unavailable in sandbox) or find specific details about the upstream PR #2765. Here is the rewritten review comment:

---

Clarify the versioning strategy for the PR-specific image tag.

The version is pinned to "pr-2765", which appears to reference upstream PR evstack/ev-node#2765. Using PR-specific image tags in production code is atypical and raises concerns:

1. What is the deployment timeline for this change—is it temporary for testing or permanent?
2. After the upstream PR is merged, what is the plan to migrate to a stable version?

If this is temporary, document it clearly and create a follow-up issue to transition to a stable semantic version. If this is permanent, prefer semantic versions or commit SHAs over PR numbers for reproducibility and clarity.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[mojtaba-esk]

Q: evstack/ev-node#2765 has some failing e2e tests is that ok?

[chatton]

ah I think that image is not pushed, the test may fail now but should be fine once the ev-node PR is merged.

[chatton]

Q: evstack/ev-node#2765 has some failing e2e tests is that ok?

they're failing 'cause their version of tastora is passing the flag that no longer exists, a bit of a chicken and egg problem. If we cut a tag with this it should allow the tests on both repos to pass.