fix: update check to verify string, otherwise it fails to verify

[RafilxTenfen]

No description provided.

[RafilxTenfen]

from talking with @KonradStaniec
We should not have this check for version v25 since the vigilante does use some deprecated calls like DumpPrivKey which is not available on version 25

Any opinions on what to do here? @SebastianElvis @gitferry

[SebastianElvis]

Hmm I'm trying out local deployments of all migrated repositories, and come across this error

goroutine 1 [running]:
github.com/babylonlabs-io/vigilante/cmd/vigilante/cmd.GetReporterCmd.func1(0xc00140e600?, {0x4336581?, 0x4?, 0x43364e5?})
	/go/src/github.com/babylonlabs-io/vigilante/cmd/vigilante/cmd/reporter.go:53 +0x61c
github.com/spf13/cobra.(*Command).execute(0xc0013f2900, {0xc000ce5760, 0x2, 0x2})
	/go/pkg/mod/github.com/spf13/[email protected]/command.go:987 +0xaa3
github.com/spf13/cobra.(*Command).ExecuteC(0xc0013f2600)
	/go/pkg/mod/github.com/spf13/[email protected]/command.go:1115 +0x3ff
github.com/spf13/cobra.(*Command).Execute(0x0?)
	/go/pkg/mod/github.com/spf13/[email protected]/command.go:1039 +0x13
main.main()
	/go/src/github.com/babylonlabs-io/vigilante/cmd/vigilante/main.go:17 +0x1d
panic: failed to open BTC client: zmq is only supported by bitcoind, but got bitcoind v24.0.0-v25.0.0

Seems related to this fix?

[SebastianElvis]

Nice catch! Caught this when debugging local deployment as well

[RafilxTenfen]

waiting for a second look @SebastianElvis

[lesterli]

@RafilxTenfen This check is unnecessary b/c the switch statement already ensures we are in the types.Bitcoind case, and The rpcclient.New() function is called with specific config to bitcoind. Can we remove the redundant check to simplify the code?

Same for the check from the btcd case, redundant check and inconsistency issue that the error message states "websocket is only supported by btcd", but the check is for a specific version (rpcclient.BtcdPost2401).

If there's a specific reason to keep these check (e.g., to catch configuration mismatches), consider moving it to a separate validation function that's called before the switch statement.

[RafilxTenfen]

#2 (comment)
sounds good, it was removed already
closing