-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Feature/reth el integration #185
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #185 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 51.93% 51.03% -0.91%
==========================================
Files 80 85 +5
Lines 7051 7413 +362
==========================================
+ Hits 3662 3783 +121
- Misses 3389 3630 +241
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good so far.
151, 170, 71, 78, 222, 173, 105, 242, 232, 9, 47, 21, 45, 160, 207, 234, 161, 29, 114, | ||
237, 237, 94, 26, 177, 140, 238, 193, 81, 63, 80, 88, 181, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't bother keeping this state test in sync. It's commented out on master now. This test isn't providing us any value if we don't have some alternative means to compute the numbers we're hardcoding in here. We will probably switch to SSZ before mainnet and that has a well-defined structure hashing scheme.
crates/evmexec/src/fcs.rs
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should be named forkchoice_state
or something.
crates/evmexec/src/engine.rs
Outdated
let fork_choice_result = self | ||
.client | ||
.fork_choice_updated_v2(fork_choice_state, None) | ||
.await; | ||
|
||
info!( | ||
"update_block_state; fork_choice_result: {:?}", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't forget to clean these up when getting ready to merge.
add evm update input extra payload structure
(currently exec payload)
f6ee20e
to
e741b90
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks pretty good.
reth/res/alpen-chain.json
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Might want to name this to indicate it's just a dev test chain.
command.ext.logs.log_file_directory = command | ||
.ext | ||
.logs | ||
.log_file_directory | ||
.join(command.chain.chain.to_string()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks weird, is this normal?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didnt want to duplicate most of the code for NodeCommand and
and LogArgs
So this ended up with putting log args as extension to node commands. 🤷
This piece of code is the equivalent of this reth code
Just make sure that the test framework instantiation works correctly. Like that the engine API keys work. |
Functional tests are working using reth as service during tests, so ok there |
"--reth-authrpc", reth_socket, | ||
"--reth-jwtsecret", reth_secret_path, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These should both use the term "engine", I can tweak this myself.
Is this still supposed to be a "draft" or is this closer to being mergeable? |
@delbonis If there are no major issues, this can be considered mergable. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This kinda steps on my PR I was working on since I was refactoring a few bits related to block assembly but that's fine I should be able to rebase.
I don't know why it says that one toml file is incorrectly formatted, ignoring. |
Description
closes #104
closes #106
closes #133
Type of Change
Checklist
Related Issues