Skip to content

execution: make ConfigureEvm independent of chainspec argument#10748

Merged
klkvr merged 13 commits intoparadigmxyz:mainfrom
tcoratger:chain_spec
Sep 11, 2024
Merged

execution: make ConfigureEvm independent of chainspec argument#10748
klkvr merged 13 commits intoparadigmxyz:mainfrom
tcoratger:chain_spec

Conversation

@tcoratger
Copy link
Contributor

Should close #10741

Copy link
Collaborator

@mattsse mattsse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

wow that was fast, tysm as always

ptal @klkvr

#[non_exhaustive]
pub struct EthEvmConfig;
pub struct EthEvmConfig {
chain_spec: ChainSpec,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and this should likely be Arc

@mattsse mattsse added C-enhancement New feature or request M-changelog This change should be included in the changelog labels Sep 6, 2024
Co-authored-by: Matthias Seitz <matthias.seitz@outlook.de>
@tcoratger
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think it conflicts with #10752 cc @klkvr.

Let me know if we should continue here on on the other one

@mattsse
Copy link
Collaborator

mattsse commented Sep 6, 2024

sorry guys, this was a comms issue on my end...

I leave it up to @klkvr how to proceed since both prs are now very very similar


/// Optimism-related EVM configuration.
#[derive(Debug, Default, Clone, Copy)]
#[derive(Debug, Default, Clone)]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this shouldn't have Default too, it causes failing tests

@mattsse I'm wondering if ChainSpec should have Default at all? feels like ChainSpec::empty() would be more explicit and safer

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mattsse Should we open an issue about this?

@tcoratger
Copy link
Contributor Author

sorry guys, this was a comms issue on my end...

I leave it up to @klkvr how to proceed since both prs are now very very similar

No problem, I've learned doing this so no problem at all.

@klkvr Let me know if you want to take it over or to move on here :) Maybe if we want to do something like ChainSpec::empty() we can do this in a prep PR to avoid mixing up things here wdyt?

@klkvr
Copy link
Member

klkvr commented Sep 6, 2024

@tcoratger there are some failing tests due to removed Default impls, I've addressed some of them in #10752 already, feel free to continue working on top of it or just use it as reference

@klkvr
Copy link
Member

klkvr commented Sep 6, 2024

@klkvr Let me know if you want to take it over or to move on here :) Maybe if we want to do something like ChainSpec::empty() we can do this in a prep PR to avoid mixing up things here wdyt?

yep sure, no need to do this here

@tcoratger
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tcoratger there are some failing tests due to removed Default impls, I've addressed some of them in #10752 already, feel free to continue working on top of it or just use it as reference

Ok let me check that here taking your impl as ref

@tcoratger tcoratger requested a review from onbjerg as a code owner September 6, 2024 17:08
tcoratger and others added 2 commits September 9, 2024 19:42
Co-authored-by: Arsenii Kulikov <klkvrr@gmail.com>
tcoratger and others added 5 commits September 9, 2024 10:43
Co-authored-by: Arsenii Kulikov <klkvrr@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Arsenii Kulikov <klkvrr@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Arsenii Kulikov <klkvrr@gmail.com>
@mattsse mattsse requested a review from klkvr September 11, 2024 12:32
Copy link
Collaborator

@mattsse mattsse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks,

this seems good to me
pending @klkvr

Copy link
Member

@klkvr klkvr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

pending conflicts

@tcoratger
Copy link
Contributor Author

lgtm

pending conflicts

@klkvr fixed

@klkvr klkvr added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 11, 2024
Merged via the queue into paradigmxyz:main with commit 2b75415 Sep 11, 2024
theochap pushed a commit to ethereum-optimism/optimism that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2026
…adigmxyz/reth#10748)

Co-authored-by: Matthias Seitz <matthias.seitz@outlook.de>
Co-authored-by: Arsenii Kulikov <klkvrr@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

C-enhancement New feature or request M-changelog This change should be included in the changelog

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Make ConfigureEvm independent of chainspec argument

3 participants