Update proposer_slashings and attester_slashings amounts for electra.

[jybp]

Issue Addressed

Did not find a specific issue beside #6821

Proposed Changes

Leverage whistleblower_reward_quotient_for_state to have accurate post-electra proposer_slashings and attester_slashings fields returned by /eth/v1/beacon/rewards/blocks/<id>.

Additional Info

While testing on Hoodi RPCs I noticed the amounts returned were wrong.

Example https://dora.hoodi.ethpandaops.io/slot/151980
/eth/v1/beacon/rewards/blocks/151980 returns "proposer_slashings":"4000000000" (4ETH) instead of 0,5ETH.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[michaelsproul]

Good catch, thanks!

The final merge window for v7.0.0 has passed (unless it's a serious bug), so this would most likely be included in v7.1.0. Does that work for you?

v7.0.0 is here for reference:

• Release v7.0.0 #7288

Planning to release early next week.

[jybp]

Does that work for you?

Yes that is great, thanks a lot for the responsiveness.

Planning to release early next week.

I would like to also open a PR to get the /eth/v1/beacon/states/{state_id}/pending_consolidations endpoint in as well ASAP: ethereum/beacon-APIs#512
Which is missing from https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/blob/unstable/beacon_node/http_api/src/lib.rs/#L1115

[jybp]

test-suite / check-code (pull_request)

error: 1 vulnerability found!
warning: 8 allowed warnings found
make: *** [Makefile:253: audit-CI] Error 1

[jybp]

The final merge window for v7.0.0 has passed (unless it's a serious bug), so this would most likely be included in v7.1.0. Does that work for you?

What is the timeline for v7.1.0?
As long as it's sooner than the mainnet fork (2025-05-07 AFAIK) then it should be fine.

[michaelsproul]

I would like to also open a PR to get the /eth/v1/beacon/states/{state_id}/pending_consolidations endpoint in as well ASAP

This has been already merged to v7.0.0 in:

• Add pending_consolidations Beacon API endpoint #7290

What is the timeline for v7.1.0?
As long as it's sooner that the mainnet fork (2025-05-07 AFAIK) then it should be fine.

There's no concrete timeline. It probably won't be before the mainnet fork.

If you retarget your branch at release-v7.0.0 I can include it in v7.0.0 seeing as it is low-risk. The rewards API is intentionally kept separate from our actual consensus code (which is also why it wasn't updated, which is unfortunate, but we can add some more tests to ensure it stays up to date).

[jybp]

This has been already merged to v7.0.0 in: #7290

Ah great missed it 👍

I can include it in v7.0.0 seeing as it is low-risk

Yes then it would be great. I rely on rewards endpoints (attestations / sync_committee / block) for reporting purposes.

This is my first contribution to the codebase so would love for a maintainer to confirm that's correct and there's no unintended side-effects:

The two call sites:

https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/blob/39eb8145f89e11e3fd3a6c9c3d1031e8772ac491/beacon_node/http_api/src/block_rewards.rs/#L63-L73
https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/blob/39eb8145f89e11e3fd3a6c9c3d1031e8772ac491/beacon_node/beacon_chain/src/block_verification.rs/#L1593-L1605

The rewards API is intentionally kept separate from our actual consensus code (which is also why it wasn't updated, which is unfortunate, but we can add some more tests to ensure it stays up to date).

That's reassuring as far as side effects goes 👍

[michaelsproul]

Btw the CI failure on unstable was just fixed by:

• Backmerge release-v7.0.0 to unstable #7315

And was already fixed on release-v7.0.0 by:

• Update crossbeam to fix cargo audit failure #7313

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts. Could you please resolve them @jybp? 🙏

[jybp]

If you retarget your branch at release-v7.0.0 I can include it in v7.0.0 seeing as it is low-risk. The rewards API is intentionally kept separate from our actual consensus code (which is also why it wasn't updated, which is unfortunate, but we can add some more tests to ensure it stays up to date).

Added on top of release-v7.0.0.

[michaelsproul]

I'll give this a proper review on Monday. It's 11pm friday in my tz so I'm logging off

[michaelsproul]

Hi @jyp, not sure if you have time to write a test for this issue? If not, let me know and I'll assign someone. Code change looks good, I just want to see it validated.

[jybp]

@michaelsproul Sorry I don't have the bandwidth and am not familiar enough with the codebase to be able to write proper tests. Would appreciate if someone else could pick it up for integration in v7.0.0 🙏

[michaelsproul]

LGTM.

Ready for merge once the other v7.0.0 changes are pushed.