Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Various spec fixes for EIP-7251 #3657

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 8, 2024

Conversation

ralexstokes
Copy link
Member

@ralexstokes ralexstokes commented Apr 6, 2024

Spec fixes found while working on #3656.

Will merge here, and rebase that to just have test fixes.

@ralexstokes ralexstokes force-pushed the eip-7251-spec-fixes branch 2 times, most recently from f0eb3b9 to 36b0c50 Compare April 6, 2024 23:17
Copy link
Contributor

@hwwhww hwwhww left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess the bugs were primarily caused by that the previous pre-fork was Bellatrix.

This fix looks good to me! (though, we need #3656 to verify it 😄)

@ralexstokes ralexstokes merged commit dd2721f into ethereum:dev Apr 8, 2024
32 checks passed
@ralexstokes ralexstokes deleted the eip-7251-spec-fixes branch April 8, 2024 14:09
# If empty, will initialize a chain that has not yet gone through the Merge transition
state.latest_execution_payload_header = execution_payload_header

return state
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@hwwhww are we still merging these? state bumps can be computed from the upgrade_to_* function

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

they do serve distinct purposes

for testing, we will usually start at genesis, whereas at the fork boundary there is likely state we want to bring forward/translate from the old fork to the new

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think @dapplion was pointing to an old discussion. I just opened an issue: #3663 (a good first issue!)

It's better to clean up them in other PRs altogether. 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants