This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 26, 2024. It is now read-only.
fix(forking): leverage the requested block number when getting forked storage #613
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
@seesemichaelj Thank you for implementing these changes, looks good! |
This was referenced Aug 20, 2020
davidmurdoch
suggested changes
Aug 21, 2020
davidmurdoch
approved these changes
Aug 25, 2020
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR resolves #573 leveraging the direction proposed by @nebojsa94. If we're getting storage prior to the fork, we don't even bother with ForkedStorageTrie and use
eth_getStorageAtinForkedBlockchain.getStorage. If we do end up hitting the forked storage trie, then we make sure we get the requested block state root prior to looking up storageI believe there is a possible cleaner architecture, but with other refactoring efforts going on plus the time to refactor in the old codebase, I feel like this is an acceptable solution.