Skip to content

Conversation

@marioevz
Copy link
Member

This PR is currently in draft to start the discussion on how to incorporate EELS and EEST into EIP-7723.

Open questions:

  • Is CFI the correct stage to introduce the blocker?
  • What branches should be used for EELS and EEST for this purpose?

There's still a discussion to be had in EELS and EEST teams to see if we are ready to start accepting contributions from EIP writers, and we can update this PR with a task list of the steps that need to happen prior to this PR being ready to merge.

@github-actions github-actions bot added c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-review This EIP is in Review t-meta labels Jan 30, 2025
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Jan 30, 2025

✅ All reviewers have approved.

@eth-bot eth-bot added the a-review Waiting on author to review label Jan 30, 2025
@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title Update 7723 to include EELS/EEST in CFI Update EIP-7723: Update 7723 to include EELS/EEST in CFI Jan 30, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Jan 30, 2025
@timbeiko
Copy link
Contributor

@marioevz I think we should make it a SHOULD for CFI and MUST for SFI.

EIPS/eip-7723.md Outdated

An EIP **MAY** be moved from `Considered for Inclusion` to `Declined for Inclusion` if client teams are against including the EIP in the network upgrade.

An EIP **SHOULD** have a Python implementation in [execution-specs](https://github.com/ethereum/execution-specs) in an open PR.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One thing our team discussed was changing this to any client implementation, out of concern for overhead. A neutral (and arguably disposable) implementation of an EIP prior to it being considered is a high bar, and not strictly necessary to fill tests against. Our thoughts are nuanced on this matter though.

This doc could also provide some guidance on when it is ok for an exception to the SHOULD, and set the expectation that ACD rough consensus would be the arbiter of that exception.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Appreciate the feedback, we could add a line regarding the CFI'd stage requirements on the basis of an ACD consensus.

Regarding the EELS overhead, the really nice thing about having everything in EELS from the start is that when the time comes to join all EIPs together to fill tests for the entire fork, everything is one implementation instead of scattered on different client implementations, because it's a big bottleneck to testing to fill one part of the tests with one t8n tool and then the rest with another.

@github-actions github-actions bot added c-status Changes a proposal's status and removed c-update Modifies an existing proposal labels Feb 12, 2025
@marioevz marioevz marked this pull request as ready for review February 13, 2025 15:46
@marioevz marioevz requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner February 13, 2025 15:46
@github-actions github-actions bot added w-ci Waiting on CI to pass and removed w-ci Waiting on CI to pass labels Feb 13, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

The commit 4898448 (as a parent of 1866b43) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Feb 13, 2025
@marioevz
Copy link
Member Author

Pushed a change to include a paragraph about EELS and EEST changes required for EIPs that get updated and are already in CFI or SFI stage.

@eth-bot eth-bot enabled auto-merge (squash) March 14, 2025 23:27
Copy link
Collaborator

@eth-bot eth-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

@eth-bot eth-bot merged commit 95fe13c into ethereum:master Mar 14, 2025
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

a-review Waiting on author to review c-status Changes a proposal's status s-review This EIP is in Review t-meta

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants