feat: add progressive types#528
Merged
Merged
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: dca3c9673b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Contributor
Performance Report✔️ no performance regression detected Full benchmark results
|
Member
Author
|
@lodekeeper please review |
lodekeeper
reviewed
May 15, 2026
Contributor
lodekeeper
left a comment
lodekeeper
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @wemeetagain. Read through the diff at d3bcb2f. Overall the new types look solid and the spec-test wiring is in good shape. One real blocker before merge, plus a couple of smaller things.
Blocker
CompatibleUnion embedded in StableContainer produces wrong proofs. Detailed in the inline reply to the Codex P1 (#528 (comment)) — TL;DR the PR correctly refactored the base CompositeType.tree_createProofGindexes to a per-prop recursive dispatch, so CompatibleUnion's selector-aware override is reached when the parent is a default-CompositeType (e.g. Container, ProgressiveContainer). But StableContainerType.tree_createProofGindexes (stableContainer.ts:434) still drives off this.getPathInfo(jsonPath), which is node-less and walks through CompatibleUnion.getPropertyType("data") → representativeType. That mis-resolves selector-specific paths (throws on fields not in the representative; silently returns phantom leaves for paths that fall back to tree_getLeafGindices on the representative type).
Suggested minimal fix: align StableContainerType.tree_createProofGindexes with the new recursive-dispatch pattern (keep the inactive-optional skip at the top level, then delegate to childType.tree_createProofGindexes(childNode, [remainingPath]) and concatGindices([childGindex, g])).
Plus a test like the existing valid.test.ts "creates nested selected data proofs using the active selector type" case but with a StableContainer wrapper — would have caught this. Worth covering both:
- a shared/common field path (
["u", "data", "common"]) - a selector-specific field path against the non-representative selector (
["u", "data", "fieldOnlyInB"])
Smaller observations
-
ProgressiveListBasicTreeViewDU.push(progressiveList.ts:634-638) andProgressiveListCompositeTreeViewDU.push(progressiveList.ts:765-769) do a fulltree_toValue→value_toTreeround-trip on every push. That'sO(N)per push andO(N²)forNpushes.ListBasicTreeViewDU/ListCompositeTreeViewDUhave incremental push paths; worth at least a TODO since these are advertised on the public API. Not a correctness issue. -
CompatibleUnionreusesgetLengthFromRootNode/addLengthNodeto stash the selector in the right-leaf "length" slot (compatibleUnion.ts:184, 189, 199, 201, 253, 323, 404, 432). Clever, but the naming will confuse readers a year from now — a one-line comment in the class header explaining "the right leaf encodes the selector via the existing length-node helpers" would help. -
bitList.ts— the newend <= startguard indeserializeUint8ArrayBitListFromBytesis a nice defensive addition. Worth a test that exercises it (e.g.BitListType.deserialize(new Uint8Array(0))) — without it, that input falls through todata[end-1]returningundefinedand produces a confusing error. -
Spec-test versioning bumps to
v1.7.0-alpha.5and the newcompatible_unions/progressive_containerscases ingeneric/types.tslook correct.
Disclosure
🤖 Reviewed with AI assistance (Codex-CLI cross-check).
Member
Author
|
Merging to unblock 7688 progress |
Merged
wemeetagain
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2026
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- <details><summary>persistent-merkle-tree: 1.3.0</summary> ## [1.3.0](persistent-merkle-tree-v1.2.5...persistent-merkle-tree-v1.3.0) (2026-05-18) ### Features * add progressive types ([#528](#528)) ([bcbcae3](bcbcae3)) </details> <details><summary>ssz: 1.5.0</summary> ## [1.5.0](ssz-v1.4.0...ssz-v1.5.0) (2026-05-18) ### Features * add progressive types ([#528](#528)) ([bcbcae3](bcbcae3)) ### Miscellaneous * bump CI Node versions to 22 and 24 ([#524](#524)) ([e8c3edb](e8c3edb)) ### Dependencies * The following workspace dependencies were updated * dependencies * @chainsafe/persistent-merkle-tree bumped to 1.3.0 </details> --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please). Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
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
2 participants
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.
Motivation
Description
ProgressiveList,ProgressiveBitlist,ProgressiveContainer,CompatibleUnion