support for running a node from a state snapshot (BFT-418) #559
Annotations
10 errors and 2 warnings
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L1
Previously present message "BlockHeaderHash" was deleted from file.
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L7
Previously present field "3" with name "first_parent" on message "Fork" was deleted.
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L7
Previously present oneof "_first_parent" on message "Fork" was deleted.
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L25
Previously present field "3" with name "number" on message "BlockHeader" was deleted.
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L25
Previously present field "4" with name "payload" on message "BlockHeader" was deleted.
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L25
Previously present oneof "_parent" on message "BlockHeader" was deleted.
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L29
Field "2" with name "payload" on message "BlockHeader" changed option "json_name" from "parent" to "payload".
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L29
Field "2" on message "BlockHeader" moved from oneof "_parent" to oneof "_payload".
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L29
Field "2" on message "BlockHeader" changed type from "zksync.roles.validator.BlockHeaderHash" to "zksync.roles.validator.PayloadHash".
|
Run bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1:
zksync/roles/validator.proto#L29
Field "2" on message "BlockHeader" changed name from "parent" to "payload".
|
Node.js 16 actions are deprecated. Please update the following actions to use Node.js 20: mozilla-actions/[email protected], bufbuild/buf-breaking-action@v1. For more information see: https://github.blog/changelog/2023-09-22-github-actions-transitioning-from-node-16-to-node-20/.
|
Run bufbuild/buf-setup-action@v1
No github_token supplied, API requests will be subject to stricter rate limiting
|
Loading