feat(protocol): document skipping withdrawalsRoot check in circuits and client

[dantaik]

See #13795

[github-actions]

The code changes in this Pull Request look good overall. The only potential issue is that the withdrawalsRoot is set to a constant 0x1 instead of the kecceck hash of the L1-to-L2 Ether deposits. It might be better to use the actual hash value here.

Additionally, there are a few typos in repeating variables such as processed_deposits_data and processed_deposits. It would be better to use consistent variable names throughout the code.

Overall, this looks like a good Pull Request and I recommend merging it.

[github-actions]

Feedback:

• The first patch changes the text from “The kecceck hash of the L1-to-L2 Ether deposits” to “0x1”. This should be clarified as it is not clear why this change is being made.
• The second patch adds a constant variable for “1” and “0”. This should be clarified as it is not clear why these variables are being added.
• There are typos in the repeating variables “h_withdrawals_root” and “processed_deposits_data” in the first patch and “zero” and “one” in the second patch. They should be corrected to ensure consistency.

[github-actions]

Overall, this pull request looks good. Here are some points to consider:

• Ensure that the withdrawalsRoot field is set to the kecceck hash of the L1-to-L2 Ether deposits instead of 0x1.
• Check that all repeating variables have the same name (e.g. processed_deposits and processed_deposits_data).
• Make sure that all constants are defined in the same place (e.g. zero, one, empty_string, empty_list).

[github-actions]

Overall, the code changes in this pull request appear to be well-structured and consistent. However, there are a few potential issues that need to be addressed.

• There is a typo in the variable h_withdrawals_root on line 168, where it should be 0x1 instead of 1.
• On line 210, the variable m_deposits_root is not defined anywhere in the patch.
• On line 233, the variable tx_list is repeated twice.
• On line 349, the constant one("1\n(one"):::constant should have an extra closing parentheses.
• The constant processed_deposits("onchain deposits data"):::constant on line 355 is repeated twice.
• The constant empty_string("' '\n(empty bytes)"):::constant on line 360 should have a single quote instead of double quotes.

[github-actions]

Overall, this pull request looks like it makes some useful changes to the document. Here are some comments and suggestions:

• The commit messages could be more descriptive.
• It appears that the variable l2_treasury is used multiple times in the code, but is only declared once. Consider declaring it in each patch to ensure consistency.
• In Patch 2, the constant one is declared twice - consider removing one of these declarations.
• In Patch 5, consider adding a comment to explain why l2_treasury is being declared again.

[github-actions]

Overall, this pull request looks good. Here are some of my comments:

• The commit messages could be more descriptive and provide more context.
• There are a few typos in the repeating variables such as 'kececk' instead of 'keccak'.
• It is not clear why one is used as the withdrawalsRoot in the Global Variable section.
• The empty_list and empty_string constants could be better named to provide more context.

[davidtaikocha]

not sure the motivation of make header.logsBloom to equal to []?

[dantaik]

Is it correct to say: "logsBloom must be a bytes32[8] with all zeros"?

[Brechtpd]

It seems like the common representation is bytes[256] where I look, but yes, 256 0 bytes.