Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: bump alloy #12215

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Nov 6, 2024
Merged

feat: bump alloy #12215

merged 21 commits into from
Nov 6, 2024

Conversation

klkvr
Copy link
Collaborator

@klkvr klkvr commented Oct 30, 2024

Bumps alloy-core, alloy and op-alloy

Related PRs:
alloy-rs/op-alloy#205
alloy-rs/alloy#1540
alloy-rs/core#796

@klkvr klkvr changed the title [wip] deps: bump alloy feat: bump alloy Nov 6, 2024
@klkvr klkvr marked this pull request as ready for review November 6, 2024 14:04
Copy link
Collaborator

@mattsse mattsse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

wow, this simplifies things a lot

crates/consensus/debug-client/src/client.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines -107 to -108
// only include is_system_tx if true: <https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/op-geth/blob/641e996a2dcf1f81bac9416cb6124f86a69f1de7/internal/ethapi/api.go#L1518-L1518>
is_system_tx: (signed_tx.is_deposit() && signed_tx.is_system_transaction())
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah great, this is now solved directly via the field

Comment on lines 8 to 14
pub fn from_primitive_storage_proof(proof: StorageProof) -> EIP1186StorageProof {
EIP1186StorageProof { key: JsonStorageKey(proof.key), value: proof.value, proof: proof.proof }
EIP1186StorageProof {
key: JsonStorageKey::Hash(proof.key),
value: proof.value,
proof: proof.proof,
}
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Idea for followup, should we move those alloy types into alloy-eips?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

eip1186 mod might make sense, though this EIP is basically just RPC spec so probably would still be closer to RPC types

Co-authored-by: Matthias Seitz <matthias.seitz@outlook.de>
@klkvr klkvr enabled auto-merge November 6, 2024 14:41
@klkvr klkvr added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 6, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 38fdc93 Nov 6, 2024
41 checks passed
@klkvr klkvr deleted the klkvr/bump-alloy branch November 6, 2024 15:08
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.

2 participants