fix(rpc-types/providers): Use U64 in block-number related types, make storage keys U256
#22
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Motivation
Closes #17.
We currently use either
u64,U64, andU256depending on the type for block number. We should consistently use one of these. Through the maintainers chat, we decided to useU64.Access lists also were agreed to use
U256.Solution
Changes block number related types to use
U64. This does not yet change types with a block number embedded in them likeHeader, and alloy'sBlockNumberalias needs to be changed separately. Should we also move ahead with this on this PR?Note that this deviates alloy's rpc types from reth.
PR Checklist