ci: prefer the Binance dataseed over publicnode for BSC fork RPC

[hardyjosh]

publicnode's BSC pool passed the preflight and then served block not found for a head it had itself just reported — a load balancer whose
backends disagree on the tip — which took down rain.deploy#161's fork
test. The dataseed leads the default order; both remain candidates.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 noreply@anthropic.com
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01HiqQdxokJ4edjAFyAkN9G3

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Updated the preferred BSC RPC endpoint order to improve reliability during network preflight checks.
  • Both supported endpoints remain available as fallback candidates.

[hardyjosh]

• ci: prefer the Binance dataseed over publicnode for BSC fork RPC #375 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 5bbe4440-53d3-476c-ad83-a4583975bb1f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b267c49 and f5ff7a2.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• rainix-static/src/rpc_preflight.rs

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The BSC network default endpoint order now prefers https://bsc-dataseed.binance.org. Both endpoints remain available, and a comment documents the publicnode preflight inconsistency.

Changes

BSC RPC preflight

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Update BSC endpoint preference rainix-static/src/rpc_preflight.rs	The BSC defaults list prioritizes Binance dataseed while retaining publicnode. A comment documents the observed block not found response.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Suggested reviewers: thedavidmeister

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to f5ff7

BSC preflight now selects the Binance dataseed before publicnode while retaining publicnode as a fallback. No current merge-blocking risk remains.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: preferring the Binance dataseed over publicnode for the BSC fork RPC.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 1…
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch 2026-09-10-bsc-default-order

---

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.}

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment