-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Merge test vectors: enable phase0 tests for Merge + start on new testing #2380
Merged
Merged
Changes from 15 commits
Commits
Show all changes
17 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f37f9a3
include merge in generators
protolambda ab693c9
update spec test constants for merge
protolambda 521cffc
update execution-payload processing to isolate payload from block body
protolambda 25d0d67
start testing of merge functionality
protolambda 36032fd
update doc about format
protolambda 79fc411
Adjust is_transition_block call in fork-choice
mkalinin e2be761
introduce merge fork version
protolambda 470c6dc
update test runner to handle merge phase
protolambda ff3a82e
fix transactions field in exec payload helper
protolambda 865d7db
update altair tests to not collide with Merge + fix merge test triggers
protolambda cc11328
fix merge forkchoice tests with mock get_pow_block
protolambda 00cd1c3
fix forkchoice unittest not recognizing merge spec
protolambda 2ef6291
Minimal execution payload test, more merge-specific testing in later PR
protolambda 56bcb63
Lint fixes for merge testing update
protolambda 8ac59b7
fix old ssz-static todo comment
protolambda 76b5974
is_execution_enabled function + misc review fixes
protolambda 42733b7
remove merge-test exec-payload trigger debug helper
protolambda File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Two issues:
tests/formats/operations/README.md
and I just realized that we putsync_aggregate
as part of "operation" tests butprocess_sync_committee
is not part of theprocess_operations
function likeexecution_payload
.sync_aggregate
as an operation.execution_payload
could also be considered as an operation since it's essentially "transactions".is_transition_completed(state) or is_transition_block(state, block)
condition checks fromprocess_execution_payload
, but it makes it a bit unclear where/how to test these conditions in test cases.What do you think about:
process_sync_committee
andprocess_execution_payload
calls intoprocess_operations
.if is_transition_completed(state) or is_transition_block(state, block)
checks extraction.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.
process_sync_committee
: sure, but let's keep that separate from merge-testing for now. Moving theprocess_execution_payload
toprocess_operations
would be good too. I'm honestly surprised we didn't do the same for the Randao and Eth1Data functionality.process_execution_payload
function: this way the function input can just be anExecutionPayload
, and not a complete beacon block body. This helps with future compatibility and reduces test complexity (We don't have to set up a complete beacon block for every single test case). We can test that one if-statement as part of the regular full beacon block testing. And in future phases after the merge, we may even remove the if-statement entirely, since the merge-transition check will always be true.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.
For (2), it might make sense to put it behind a function
is_execution_enabled(state, block)
. This is semantically cleaner for any chain/setting that doesn't have the transition. They can just override the function to returnTrue
and as you mentioned, in the future we can just remove it.