Remove unused RPC error

[joshklop]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (7a816ed) 73.73% compared to head (0892fc8) 73.73%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1237   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   73.73%   73.73%           
=======================================
  Files          70       70           
  Lines        7554     7554           
=======================================
  Hits         5570     5570           
+ Misses       1527     1526    -1     
- Partials      457      458    +1     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
rpc/handlers.go	77.04% <ø> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[omerfirmak]

Do you think it makes sense to return this for blocks that we cannot successfully run with blockifier? Old blocks for example

[joshklop]

Do you think it makes sense to return this for blocks that we cannot successfully run with blockifier? Old blocks for example

No. The spec requires us to indicate why the trace is not available in the Data field by setting it to RECEIVED or REJECTED. i.e., the trace is not available because the transaction is invalid or because the sequencer hasn't traced it yet.

The error shouldn't be part of the spec imho--I think it was mistakenly copied from the feeder, where it would make more sense in the context of caching traces.