EVM: Pending transaction handling nonce #2382
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
citizen-stig
force-pushed
the
pending-transaction-handling
branch
from
31bbfbe to
ecaa36b
Compare
citizen-stig
changed the title
citizen-stig
force-pushed
the
eip-1898-blockid
branch
from
4a63ad1 to
a65dc7d
Compare
citizen-stig
force-pushed
the
pending-transaction-handling
branch
from
ecaa36b to
434ec95
Compare
Contributor
Greptile OverviewGreptile SummaryEnhanced Key changes:
The logic correctly handles the case where no pending transactions exist (returns 0, then takes max with committed nonce). However, the approach of using only the maximum pending nonce may not handle nonce gaps optimally - if an address has pending transactions with non-sequential nonces, this could suggest higher nonces than necessary. Confidence Score: 4/5
Important Files Changed
|
![greptile-apps[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/867647?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Comment on lines
+169
to
+180
| let pending_nonce = if is_pending { | ||
| let pending_txs: Vec<_> = self.pending_transactions.collect_infallible(state); | ||
| pending_txs | ||
| .iter() | ||
| .filter(|pending| pending.transaction.signer == address) | ||
| .map(|pending| pending.transaction.signed_transaction.nonce()) | ||
| .max() | ||
| .map(|nonce| nonce.saturating_add(1)) | ||
| .unwrap_or(0) | ||
| } else { | ||
| 0 | ||
| }; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential edge case with nonce gaps. If pending transactions have non-sequential nonces (e.g., nonces 5 and 10), this returns 11, but nonce 6-9 would still be valid. Standard Ethereum behavior tracks all pending nonces, not just the max.
Prompt To Fix With AI
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: crates/module-system/module-implementations/sov-evm/src/rpc/handlers.rs
Line: 169:180
Comment:
Potential edge case with nonce gaps. If pending transactions have non-sequential nonces (e.g., nonces 5 and 10), this returns 11, but nonce 6-9 would still be valid. Standard Ethereum behavior tracks all pending nonces, not just the max.
How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a good point!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Adds a check for higher nonce in
Evm.pending_transactionsCHANGELOG.mdwith a new entry if my PR makes any breaking changes or fixes a bug. If my PR removes a feature or changes its behavior, I provide help for users on how to migrate to the new behavior.Cargo.tomlchanges before opening the PRs. (Are all new dependencies necessary? Is any module dependency leaked into the full-node (hint: it shouldn't)?)Testing
All existing tests are passing
Docs
No updates