Bump nim-eth (#3841)

Author: bhartnett

execution_chain/block_access_list/block_access_list_builder.nim

@@ -43,17 +43,17 @@ type
     accounts*: Table[Address, AccountData]
       ## Maps address -> account data
 
-proc init*(T: type AccountData): T =
+template init*(T: type AccountData): T =
   AccountData()
 
 # Disallow copying of AccountData
 proc `=copy`(dest: var AccountData; src: AccountData) {.error: "Copying AccountData is forbidden".} =
   discard
 
-proc init*(T: type BlockAccessListBuilderRef): T =
+template init*(T: type BlockAccessListBuilderRef): T =
   BlockAccessListBuilderRef()
 
-proc ensureAccount(builder: BlockAccessListBuilderRef, address: Address) =
+func ensureAccount(builder: BlockAccessListBuilderRef, address: Address) =
   if address notin builder.accounts:
     builder.accounts[address] = AccountData.init()
 
@@ -110,16 +110,19 @@ proc addCodeChange*(
   builder.accounts.withValue(address, accData):
     accData[].codeChanges[blockAccessIndex] = newCode
 
-proc balIndexCmp(x, y: StorageChange | BalanceChange | NonceChange | CodeChange): int =
+func balIndexCmp(x, y: StorageChange | BalanceChange | NonceChange | CodeChange): int =
   cmp(x.blockAccessIndex, y.blockAccessIndex)
 
-proc slotCmp(x, y: SlotChanges): int =
-  cmp(x.slot, y.slot)
+func slotCmp(x, y: StorageKey | StorageValue): int =
+  cmp(x.data.toHex(), y.data.toHex())
 
-proc addressCmp(x, y: AccountChanges): int =
+func slotChangesCmp(x, y: SlotChanges): int =
+  cmp(x.slot.data.toHex(), y.slot.data.toHex())
+
+func addressCmp(x, y: AccountChanges): int =
   cmp(x.address.data.toHex(), y.address.data.toHex())
 
-proc buildBlockAccessList*(builder: BlockAccessListBuilderRef): BlockAccessList =
+func buildBlockAccessList*(builder: BlockAccessListBuilderRef): BlockAccessList =
   var blockAccessList: BlockAccessList
 
   for address, accData in builder.accounts.mpairs():
@@ -129,18 +132,18 @@ proc buildBlockAccessList*(builder: BlockAccessListBuilderRef): BlockAccessList
       var slotChanges: seq[StorageChange]
 
       for balIndex, value in changes:
-        slotChanges.add((BlockAccessIndex(balIndex), StorageValue(value)))
+        slotChanges.add((BlockAccessIndex(balIndex), StorageValue(value.toBytesBE())))
       slotChanges.sort(balIndexCmp)
 
-      storageChanges.add((StorageKey(slot), slotChanges))
-    storageChanges.sort(slotCmp)
+      storageChanges.add((StorageKey(slot.toBytesBE()), slotChanges))
+    storageChanges.sort(slotChangesCmp)
 
     # Collect and sort storageReads
     var storageReads: seq[StorageKey]
     for slot in accData.storageReads:
       if slot notin accData.storageChanges:
-        storageReads.add(slot)
-    storageReads.sort()
+        storageReads.add(StorageKey(slot.toBytesBE()))
+    storageReads.sort(slotCmp)
 
     # Collect and sort balanceChanges
     var balanceChanges: seq[BalanceChange]

execution_chain/block_access_list/block_access_list_validation.nim

@@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ import
 
 export block_access_lists, hashes, results
 
+func slotCmp(x, y: StorageKey | StorageValue): int =
+  cmp(x.data.toHex(), y.data.toHex())
 
 func validate*(bal: BlockAccessList, expectedHash: Hash32): Result[void, string] =
   ## Validate that a block access list is structurally correct and matches the expected hash.
@@ -42,7 +44,7 @@ func validate*(bal: BlockAccessList, expectedHash: Hash32): Result[void, string]
   for accountChanges in bal:
     # Validate storage changes slots are sorted lexicographically
     let storageChangesSlots = accountChanges.storageChanges.mapIt(it.slot)
-    if storageChangesSlots != storageChangesSlots.sorted():
+    if storageChangesSlots != storageChangesSlots.sorted(slotCmp):
       return err("Storage changes slots should be sorted lexicographically")
 
     # Check storage changes are sorted by blockAccessIndex
@@ -53,7 +55,7 @@ func validate*(bal: BlockAccessList, expectedHash: Hash32): Result[void, string]
 
     # Validate storage reads are sorted lexicographically
     let storageReadsSlots = accountChanges.storageReads
-    if storageReadsSlots != storageReadsSlots.sorted():
+    if storageReadsSlots != storageReadsSlots.sorted(slotCmp):
       return err("Storage reads should be sorted lexicographically")
 
     # Check balance changes are sorted by blockAccessIndex

tests/test_block_access_list_builder.nim

@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ import
   unittest2,
   ../execution_chain/block_access_list/block_access_list_builder
 
+template toBytes32(slot: UInt256): Bytes32 =
+  Bytes32(slot.toBytesBE())
 
 suite "Block access list builder":
   const
@@ -61,12 +63,12 @@ suite "Block access list builder":
       bal.len() == 2
       bal[0].address == address1
       bal[0].storageChanges.len() == 3
-      bal[0].storageChanges[0] == (slot1, @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256)])
-      bal[0].storageChanges[1] == (slot2, @[(2.BlockAccessIndex, 2.u256)])
-      bal[0].storageChanges[2] == (slot3, @[(0.BlockAccessIndex, 3.u256), (3.BlockAccessIndex, 5.u256)])
+      bal[0].storageChanges[0] == (slot1.toBytes32(), @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256.toBytes32())])
+      bal[0].storageChanges[1] == (slot2.toBytes32(), @[(2.BlockAccessIndex, 2.u256.toBytes32())])
+      bal[0].storageChanges[2] == (slot3.toBytes32(), @[(0.BlockAccessIndex, 3.u256.toBytes32()), (3.BlockAccessIndex, 5.u256.toBytes32())])
       bal[1].address == address2
       bal[1].storageChanges.len() == 1
-      bal[1].storageChanges[0] == (slot1, @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256)])
+      bal[1].storageChanges[0] == (slot1.toBytes32(), @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256.toBytes32())])
 
   test "Add storage read":
     builder.addStorageRead(address2, slot3)
@@ -79,11 +81,11 @@ suite "Block access list builder":
     check:
       bal.len() == 3
       bal[0].address == address1
-      bal[0].storageReads == @[slot1]
+      bal[0].storageReads == @[slot1.toBytes32()]
       bal[1].address == address2
-      bal[1].storageReads == @[slot2, slot3]
+      bal[1].storageReads == @[slot2.toBytes32(), slot3.toBytes32()]
       bal[2].address == address3
-      bal[2].storageReads == @[slot3]
+      bal[2].storageReads == @[slot3.toBytes32()]
 
   test "Add balance change":
     builder.addBalanceChange(address2, 1, 0.u256)
@@ -175,23 +177,23 @@ suite "Block access list builder":
 
       bal[0].address == address1
       bal[0].storageChanges.len() == 3
-      bal[0].storageChanges[0] == (slot1, @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256)])
-      bal[0].storageChanges[1] == (slot2, @[(2.BlockAccessIndex, 2.u256)])
-      bal[0].storageChanges[2] == (slot3, @[(0.BlockAccessIndex, 3.u256), (3.BlockAccessIndex, 5.u256)])
+      bal[0].storageChanges[0] == (slot1.toBytes32(), @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256.toBytes32())])
+      bal[0].storageChanges[1] == (slot2.toBytes32(), @[(2.BlockAccessIndex, 2.u256.toBytes32())])
+      bal[0].storageChanges[2] == (slot3.toBytes32(), @[(0.BlockAccessIndex, 3.u256.toBytes32()), (3.BlockAccessIndex, 5.u256.toBytes32())])
       bal[0].storageReads.len() == 0 # read removed by storage change with the same slot
       bal[0].balanceChanges == @[(2.BlockAccessIndex, 10.u256)]
       bal[0].nonceChanges == @[(3.BlockAccessIndex, 3.AccountNonce)]
       bal[0].codeChanges == @[(3.BlockAccessIndex, @[0x4.byte])]
 
       bal[1].address == address2
       bal[1].storageChanges.len() == 1
-      bal[1].storageChanges[0] == (slot1, @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256)])
-      bal[1].storageReads == @[slot2, slot3]
+      bal[1].storageChanges[0] == (slot1.toBytes32(), @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256.toBytes32())])
+      bal[1].storageReads == @[slot2.toBytes32(), slot3.toBytes32()]
       bal[1].balanceChanges == @[(0.BlockAccessIndex, 1.u256), (1.BlockAccessIndex, 0.u256)]
       bal[1].nonceChanges == @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 1.AccountNonce), (2.BlockAccessIndex, 2.AccountNonce)]
       bal[1].codeChanges == @[(0.BlockAccessIndex, @[0x1.byte]), (1.BlockAccessIndex, @[0x2.byte])]
 
       bal[2].address == address3
-      bal[2].storageReads == @[slot3]
+      bal[2].storageReads == @[slot3.toBytes32()]
       bal[2].balanceChanges == @[(3.BlockAccessIndex, 3.u256)]
       bal[2].nonceChanges == @[(1.BlockAccessIndex, 10.AccountNonce)]

tests/test_block_access_list_validation.nim

@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ import
   eth/common/block_access_lists_rlp,
   ../execution_chain/block_access_list/[block_access_list_builder, block_access_list_validation]
 
+template toBytes32(slot: UInt256): Bytes32 =
+  Bytes32(slot.toBytesBE())
 
 suite "Block access list validation":
   const
@@ -79,7 +81,7 @@ suite "Block access list validation":
     builder.addStorageWrite(address1, slot3, 3, 3.u256)
 
     var bal = builder.buildBlockAccessList()
-    bal[0].storageReads = @[slot1]
+    bal[0].storageReads = @[slot1.toBytes32()]
     check bal.validate(bal.computeBlockAccessListHash()).isErr()
 
   test "Account changes out of order should fail validation":