Repository navigation
89 specs stated a count their own list contradicted - #2782
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The FAQ endpoint sentence paired an authored list of endpoints with
{{count}}, which is the display cohort behind a 5 % success floor. The
two drifted: twenty-nine specs disagreed with themselves, the worst
reading "2 endpoints sustain continuous keyless probing today" above
three names, one of which answers 1.4 % of the time.
The verb was the other half of it. "Sustain continuous keyless probing"
asserts that every named endpoint answers, which is the claim the
measurement contradicts: Thirdweb is declared on 31 chain RPC benches and
answers 0.3 % to 1.5 % of our probes. An endpoint is probed whether or
not it replies, so the sentence says that instead, and the block shipped
in #2779 names the ones that do not reply, with their success rate.
{{declared_count}} is derived from the spec's own provider list, so
neither number is authored any more. Only the names are, and a test pins
them: no spec may claim continuous probing again, none may pair the
display count with that sentence, and every spec using the sentence must
use the derived placeholder.
The validator keeps an allow-list of placeholders and rejected all 88
files on the first run. That is the check working: the token is
registered now rather than the list being bypassed.
An earlier attempt rewrote the whole sentence, mangled the punctuation on
55 files and covered only 55 of 89 because the tails vary. Reverted. This
one replaces the faulty segment and leaves every tail alone.
Flotapponnier
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2026
The FAQ endpoint sentence paired an authored list of endpoints with
{{count}}, which is the display cohort behind a 5 % success floor. The
two drifted: twenty-nine specs disagreed with themselves, the worst
reading "2 endpoints sustain continuous keyless probing today" above
three names, one of which answers 1.4 % of the time.
The verb was the other half of it. "Sustain continuous keyless probing"
asserts that every named endpoint answers, which is the claim the
measurement contradicts: Thirdweb is declared on 31 chain RPC benches and
answers 0.3 % to 1.5 % of our probes. An endpoint is probed whether or
not it replies, so the sentence says that instead, and the block shipped
in #2779 names the ones that do not reply, with their success rate.
{{declared_count}} is derived from the spec's own provider list, so
neither number is authored any more. Only the names are, and a test pins
them: no spec may claim continuous probing again, none may pair the
display count with that sentence, and every spec using the sentence must
use the derived placeholder.
The validator keeps an allow-list of placeholders and rejected all 88
files on the first run. That is the check working: the token is
registered now rather than the list being bypassed.
An earlier attempt rewrote the whole sentence, mangled the punctuation on
55 files and covered only 55 of 89 because the tails vary. Reverted. This
one replaces the faulty segment and leaves every tail alone.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The defect
The FAQ endpoint sentence paired an authored list of endpoints with
{{count}}, which is the display cohort behind a 5 % success floor. The two drifted apart:abstract-rpchedera-rpcmanta-rpckava-rpc29 specs disagreed with themselves.
The verb was the other half. "Sustain continuous keyless probing" asserts every named endpoint answers, which is exactly what the measurement contradicts: Thirdweb is declared on 31 chain RPC benches and answers 0.3 % to 1.5 % of our probes.
The fix
{{declared_count}} endpoints are probed on this chain: …An endpoint is probed whether or not it replies. The block shipped in #2779 names the ones that do not, with their measured success rate, so the two sentences now agree on the same page.
{{declared_count}}is derived from the spec's own provider list, so neither number is authored. Only the names are, andsrc/lib/endpoint-sentence.test.tspins the rest: no spec may claim continuous probing again, none may pair the display count with that sentence, and every spec using it must use the derived placeholder.Two things worth recording
The validator keeps an allow-list of placeholders and rejected all 88 files on the first run. That is the check doing its job; the token is registered rather than the list bypassed.
My first attempt rewrote the whole sentence, mangled the punctuation across 55 files and covered only 55 of 89 because the tails vary (57 end with "Every listed endpoint…", 10 end differently, 1 with "For production trading…"). Reverted with
git checkout. This version replaces only the faulty segment and leaves every tail untouched.Verified
88 specs plus
tron-rpc, which uses a "JSON-RPC endpoints" variant. Zero occurrences of the old phrasing remain.pnpm validate241 specs valid, 418 tests pass (5 new),tscand eslint clean.