attestation: some simplifications #234
Merged
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
anshalshukla
approved these changes
Dec 15, 2025
fselmo
pushed a commit
to unnawut/leanSpec
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2025
* attestation: some simplifications * doc touchup * cleanup duplication test * better doc
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
@anshalshukla I think that we can get rid of the
to_plain()method in order which was a bit weird the thedata=self.datathat was repeated for all the validator indices. I guess that is simpler and more logical to haveprocess_attestationsdealing withattestations: Iterable[AggregatedAttestation]instead.🔗 Related Issues or PRs
✅ Checklist
toxchecks to avoid unnecessary CI fails:uvx tox