feat: add block header by number content value #1706
Closed
+104
−35
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
ogenev
force-pushed
the
header-by-number-content
branch
from
d8b9452 to
b048e23
Compare
KolbyML
requested changes
Feb 26, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BlockHeaderByNumber isn't a ContentValue variant, both BlockHeaderByHash and BlockHeaderByNumber both use the ContentValue BlockHeaderWithProof.
BlockHeaderByHash and BlockHeaderByNumber are ContentKey's not ContentValues. 0x3 is already reserved for BlockHeaderByNumber.
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, this PR doesn't make sense, closing. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What was wrong?
Block Header by Number content value implementation is missing. Here are the specs.
To reserve the 0x03 selector, we have to implement this for
HistoryContentValuebefore ephemeral headers.How was it fixed?
Add
BlockHeaderByNumberhistory content value variant and update the db migration code.It seems the
BlockHeaderWithProofvariant should be renamed toBlockHeaderByHashbut we can discuss this and it is for another PR.To-Do