Skip to content

chore: flush backport-later PRs to v4-next#21341

Closed
ludamad wants to merge 4 commits intov4-nextfrom
backport-later-to-v4-next
Closed

chore: flush backport-later PRs to v4-next#21341
ludamad wants to merge 4 commits intov4-nextfrom
backport-later-to-v4-next

Conversation

@ludamad
Copy link
Collaborator

@ludamad ludamad commented Mar 11, 2026

Summary

Cherry-picks the two PRs that had the backport-later label into v4-next:

Both conflicts were resolved conservatively by accepting the incoming PR changes.

The backport-later labels on both PRs will be replaced with backport-to-v4-next once this is merged.

@ludamad ludamad requested a review from nventuro as a code owner March 11, 2026 01:09
@ludamad ludamad requested a review from LeilaWang as a code owner March 11, 2026 01:09
@ludamad ludamad added the claudebox Owned by claudebox. it can push to this PR. label Mar 11, 2026
nchamo and others added 4 commits March 11, 2026 03:46
The cherry-pick of #21244 only resolved the conflict region (first oracle name),
but missed renaming utilityGetBlockHashMembershipWitness to aztec_utl_getBlockHashMembershipWitness.
The hash from next (34238ab5...) doesn't match v4-next's oracle interface.
Updated to the correct hash (c4c91e3c...) computed by CI.
@AztecBot AztecBot force-pushed the backport-later-to-v4-next branch from 6ff6d28 to 8c888fd Compare March 11, 2026 03:57
@benesjan
Copy link
Contributor

@nchamo since #21176 modifies oracles I think we will want to backport this to v4 and v4-next. I plan on backporting today a couple of PRs to v4 so I will take care of backporting yours as well. (more context here)

@benesjan
Copy link
Contributor

Closing this as I will backport the PRs here to v4.

@benesjan benesjan closed this Mar 11, 2026
@benesjan benesjan deleted the backport-later-to-v4-next branch March 11, 2026 06:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ci-no-squash claudebox Owned by claudebox. it can push to this PR.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants