Add EOF code validation draft #3670
Conversation
|
Why was this auto merged without review from any other editor? |
|
Hmm, good question. cc @alita-moore If an editor is an author, the PR should wait for another editor to approve before merging. It is probably simpler to just require an approval from any editor (like all PRs) and ignore that the author happens to be an editor. |
|
Got it, will address this |
|
@MicahZoltu should I ask you for a review nonetheless? 😉 |
|
|
||
| ## Specification | ||
|
|
||
| *Remark:* We rely on the notation of *initcode*, *code* and *creation* as defined by EIP-3540. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| *Remark:* We rely on the notation of *initcode*, *code* and *creation* as defined by EIP-3540. | |
| *Remark:* We rely on the notation of *initcode*, *code* and *creation* as defined by [EIP-3540](./eip-3540.md). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While technically you linked in the abstract, I'm a fan of linking everywhere, or at least linking to the first use in the Specification section. Not a blocker.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, added into our WIP update.
| ## Test Cases | ||
|
|
||
| TBA | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## Test Cases | |
| TBA |
Consider just leaving this section out until you have something for it, since this is an optional section anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Noted, though in the next update we have test cases listed.
|
@MicahZoltu this should be addressed now |
* Add EOF validation draft * Rename to EIP-3670 * Use new discussion url
No description provided.