Skip to content

feat: always vector for ExecutionBlockProof types #1779

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

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

morph-dev
Copy link
Collaborator

@morph-dev morph-dev commented Apr 24, 2025

[DEPRECATED] I will split this into multiple PRs. No need for review!

What was wrong?

The spec is changing the type of ExecutionBlockProof to always be Vector. See ethereum/portal-network-specs#396

How was it fixed?

Switch to using Vector for ExecutionBlockProof types.
Add proof generation for Deneb.

Note that tests are passing with combination of following PRs:

To-Do

Comment on lines +21 to +37
/// The timestamp of the first Merge block (block number: 15537394)
pub const MERGE_TIMESTAMP: u64 = 1663224179;

/// The timestamp of the first Shapella (Shanghai-Capella) slot.
///
/// - Slot: 6209536
/// - Epoch: 194048
/// - Block number: 17034870
/// - Note that frst Shapella block is created at slot 6209538 (timestamp: 1681338479)
pub const SHAPELLA_TIMESTAMP: u64 = 1681338455;

/// The timestamp of the first Dencun (Cancun-Deneb) slot.
///
/// - Slot: 8626176
/// - Epoch: 269568
/// - Block number: 19426587
pub const DENCUN_TIMESTAMP: u64 = 1710338135;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One thing to note is long term instead of using these constants we would be required to pass NetworkSpec which would hold the fork timestamps per network mainnet,sepolia etc

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So in short going forward if we want to support testnets we won't be able to use any global consts for forks

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will make a followup PR for using NetworkSpec instead of const's. I don't think I have concerns with this PR anymore

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here is a PR for it #1780

@morph-dev
Copy link
Collaborator Author

No need to review this PR. I will split it into smaller PRs and merge separately (I made some changes that are no longer needed, and I want to organize code a bit better)

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.

2 participants