Skip to content

Conversation

@somnergy
Copy link
Contributor

@somnergy somnergy commented Apr 9, 2025

No description provided.

2. `expectedBlobVersionedHashes`: `Array of DATA`, 32 Bytes - Array of expected blob versioned hashes to validate.
3. `parentBeaconBlockRoot`: `DATA`, 32 Bytes - Root of the parent beacon block.
4. `executionRequests`: `Array of DATA` - List of execution layer triggered requests. Each list element is a `requests` byte array as defined by [EIP-7685](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7685). The first byte of each element is the `request_type` and the remaining bytes are the `request_data`. Elements of the list **MUST** be ordered by `request_type` in ascending order. Elements with empty `request_data` **MUST** be excluded from the list. If any element is out of order, has a length of 1-byte or shorter, or more than one element has the same type byte, client software **MUST** return `-32602: Invalid params` error.
4. `executionRequests`: `Array of DATA` - List of execution layer triggered requests. Each list element is a `requests` byte array as defined by [EIP-7685](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7685). The first byte of each element is the `request_type` and the remaining bytes are the `request_data`. Elements of the list **MUST** be ordered by `request_type` in ascending order. Elements with empty `request_data` **MUST** be excluded from the list. If the list has no elements, the expected array MUST be `[]`. If any element is out of order, has a length of 1-byte or shorter, or more than one element has the same type byte, or the param is `null`, client software **MUST** return `-32602: Invalid params` error.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
4. `executionRequests`: `Array of DATA` - List of execution layer triggered requests. Each list element is a `requests` byte array as defined by [EIP-7685](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7685). The first byte of each element is the `request_type` and the remaining bytes are the `request_data`. Elements of the list **MUST** be ordered by `request_type` in ascending order. Elements with empty `request_data` **MUST** be excluded from the list. If the list has no elements, the expected array MUST be `[]`. If any element is out of order, has a length of 1-byte or shorter, or more than one element has the same type byte, or the param is `null`, client software **MUST** return `-32602: Invalid params` error.
4. `executionRequests`: `Array of DATA` - List of execution layer triggered requests. Each list element is a `requests` byte array as defined by [EIP-7685](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7685). The first byte of each element is the `request_type` and the remaining bytes are the `request_data`. Elements of the list **MUST** be ordered by `request_type` in ascending order. Elements with empty `request_data` **MUST** be excluded from the list. If the list has no elements, the expected array MUST be `[]`. If any element is out of order; has a length of 1-byte or shorter; more than one element has the same type byte; or the param is `null`, then client software **MUST** return `-32602: Invalid params` error.

Just a stylistic suggestion since it's turned into a big list with nested "or"s. I wonder if this would be easier to read as a bullet point list in the specification section?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, bullet points would have been good. But this is okay.

@somnergy somnergy changed the title engine: Specify INVALID for null executionRequests in newPayloadV4 engine: Specify Invalid params err for null executionRequests in newPayloadV4 Apr 10, 2025
@mkalinin
Copy link
Contributor

Accidentally found this PR in an open state, is this change still relevant?

@somnergy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Accidentally found this PR in an open state, is this change still relevant?

Yes. This is what the clients are actually already doing (at least Geth and Erigon, and probably Besu who were passing all EESTs). So this must be specified.

@mkalinin mkalinin merged commit 884fb32 into ethereum:main May 28, 2025
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants