Skip to content

Conversation

kevaundray
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Comment on lines +119 to +120
def generate_merkle_proof_requests(state) -> Tuple[List[Address], List[Tuple[Address, Bytes32]]]:
"""
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Left this here to show what the next addition may look like -- will delete

elif access_type in [STORAGE_READ, STORAGE_WRITE]:
if address not in tracker.storage_accessed_keys:
tracker.storage_accessed_keys[address] = set()
if key is not None:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Might be safer to also raise an error if key is None?
For a STORAGE_READ or STORAGE_WRITE sounds like if this sitaution happens, it should be an error?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep thats true -- @fselmo , this or the previous one were PRs that I was trying to merge into the execution specs, just want to confirm again that you will be adding the same functionality with your BAL PR?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep thats true -- @fselmo , this or the previous one were PRs that I was trying to merge into the execution specs, just want to confirm again that you will be adding the same functionality with your BAL PR?

Thanks for the ping! I brought this up recently in the STEEL meeting. I've mostly been coordinating that PR with the testing side and @nerolation has been implementing most of the specs for it. It would make sense to me though to get these changes here dialed in and approved and then rebase our changes off of these to use the same tracker? What do you think?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We already have a working implementation for BALs. I think we should consolidate the ideas from here and in the BALs PR. I'm not sure what the differences in use / design are between the implementations but it would be worth not duplicating work and syncing on this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe the BALs work is a superset of what we need -- I can setup a group with Me + Ignacio + Toni + other STEEL members so we can dial this in

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants