feat(core/types): Block RLP overriding
#133
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
ARR4N
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2025
qdm12
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2025
qdm12
reviewed
Feb 13, 2025
Co-authored-by: Quentin McGaw <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Arran Schlosberg <[email protected]>
qdm12
approved these changes
Feb 13, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Why this should be merged
Support for configurable
core/types.Blockwith RLP encoding, including interplay withBody.How this works
Blockdoesn't export most of its fields so relies on an internal type,extblock, for RLP encoding. This type is modified to implement therlp.EncoderandDecodermethods as a point to inject hooks usingrlp.Fields(as in #120 forBody).Blockshares the same registered extra type asBody. UnlikeHeader, which has its own field in aBlock, the fields inBodyare promoted to be carried directly. This suggests that (at least for pure data payloads) the modifications might be equivalent (andava-labs/corethevidences this). Should different payloads be absolutely required in the future, we can split the types—theRegisterExtrassignature is already too verbose though 😢.How this was tested
Explicit inclusion of a backwards-compatibility test for
NOOPBlockBodyHooks+ implicit testing via the multiple upstream tests inblock_test.go. Re implicit testing: default behaviour is now to use the noop hooks even when no registration is performed, but if we change this then the tests inblock_test.gocan still be called as subtests from a test that explicitly registers noops.