feat: added error codes for supervisor RPC errors

[07Vaishnavi-Singh]

Closes - #660

Changes

• Added an "Errors" section to the Supervisor spec document with two subsections:
  • Standard JSON-RPC Error Codes (-32700 to -32006)
  • Protocol-Specific Error Codes (-32100 to -32119)
• Mapped Go error types from the codebase to specific error codes
• Used consistent error code grouping with shared prefixes
• Followed standard JSON-RPC error formatting and descriptions

[07Vaishnavi-Singh]

hey @emhane, can you provide a review....will fix it according to the suggestions. ty!

[emhane]

great start! first pass, will give this another pass in a bit. I like that you make the distinction between e.g. unknown chain and errors more specifically related to data availability by using the 3210 and 3211 prefixes respectively

[emhane]

thought again about how to do the codes, let's do this:

• we add an extra digit, so we are guaranteed not to conflict with l1 error codes https://ethereum-json-rpc.com/errors, we get 6 digits
• we use gRPC status codes to group errors https://grpc.io/docs/guides/status-codes/. this helps users guess the error type of unknown errors and gives nice system to follow.

the 6 digit error code is made up as follows

• first 2 digits reserved for 32XXXX meaning server error
• following digit pair reserved for gRPC error category (1-16)
  e.g. 320600 refers to the first server error of category ALREADY_EXISTS = 6.
  we use 06 so we can make the distinction between status code CANCELLED = 1, 3201XX, and ABORTED = 10, 3210XX.
• last digit pair is reserved for indexing errors of same gRPC code on the same server. so, 320601 is the second error of category ALREADY_EXISTS on the server.

[07Vaishnavi-Singh]

Hey @emhane, I have adjusted the error codes according to the 6-digit standard, and also made the small refactoring nits asked. lmk if something still needs to be done. ty!

[emhane]

super nice! some nitpicks remaining

[emhane]

awesome. thanks a lot !

[07Vaishnavi-Singh]

hey @emhane , can you provide some TG would be helpful while implementing these error codes in reth

[emhane]

hey @emhane , can you provide some TG would be helpful while implementing these error codes in reth

sure, when this pr is merged is a good time to start impl in reth

[tynes]

flagging @alfonso-op on this. we will want to make sure that the error codes make sense for proxyd and that the user story of a transaction being sent that includes an invalid access list is dropped returns an error code that is well defined and included in common libraries like viem

[emhane]

apologies for the slow review @07Vaishnavi-Singh !

[07Vaishnavi-Singh]

hey @tynes , if @alfonso-op is occupied at the moment I can handle the issue further. Can you please just tell me what needs to be done and would be great if you can share some resources for the same. Will wrap it up as soon as possible and and start working on paradigmxyz/reth#15671

[alfonso-op]

Apologies for not replying to this directly last week. @jelias2 and @yashvardhan-kukreja are implementing the changes to proxyd to integrate with supervisor and will share any feedback.

[jelias2]

overall lgtm, needs a spec reviewer

[yashvardhan-kukreja]

Thank you @07Vaishnavi-Singh, this looks neat and useful!

Looking forwards to more such contributions :)