fix: use next epoch for pending balance/consolidations processing - #7053
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## electra-fork-rebasejul30 #7053 +/- ##
============================================================
- Coverage 49.39% 49.37% -0.03%
============================================================
Files 589 589
Lines 39233 39233
Branches 2247 2243 -4
============================================================
- Hits 19378 19370 -8
- Misses 19814 19822 +8
Partials 41 41 |
| * TODO Electra: Update ssz library to support batch push to `pendingBalanceDeposits` | ||
| */ | ||
| export function processPendingBalanceDeposits(state: CachedBeaconStateElectra, cache: EpochTransitionCache): void { | ||
| const nextEpoch = state.epochCtx.epoch + 1; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really like the name upcomingEpoch made by @matthewkeil for processEpoch code in his async shuffling PR #6938
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yea name is good but i think good to be closer to naming used in specs, though not a strong opinion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 on following spec naming, I think we should have a good reason if we wanna deviate from terms used in spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, if we really have a problem with the naming, we should aim to update it in the spec instead. Deviating off standards create more context loss for new people reading our code IMO.
aa653e2 to
ed18ff0
Compare
b9f0b50
| ], | ||
| // TODO Electra: Review this test in the next spec test release | ||
| skippedTests: [/incorrect_not_enough_consolidation_churn_available/], | ||
| skippedTests: [/incorrect_not_enough_consolidation_churn_available/, /^deneb\/light_client\/sync\/.*electra_fork.*/], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe /incorrect_not_enough_consolidation_churn_available/ can be removed since it was fixed after alpha.3
| * TODO Electra: Update ssz library to support batch push to `pendingBalanceDeposits` | ||
| */ | ||
| export function processPendingBalanceDeposits(state: CachedBeaconStateElectra, cache: EpochTransitionCache): void { | ||
| const nextEpoch = state.epochCtx.epoch + 1; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 on following spec naming, I think we should have a good reason if we wanna deviate from terms used in spec.
|
馃帀 This PR is included in v1.22.0 馃帀 |
6 participants
devnet3 branch