History: Remove SSZ Union from BlockHeaderWithProof data structure #362
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
|
Also updated the portal-spec-tests test vectors in case somebody wants to try test this proposal: ethereum/portal-spec-tests#34 |
pipermerriam
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like the right way forward. 👍
This will be another change that needs some level of coordination across the clients. @kdeme assuming this gets support across the teams, can you also create an issue to track the go-live plan for how we get this live on the network.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Proposal to remove the SSZ Union in the
BlockHeaderWithProofdata structure.Opted for not having any select/identifier for the proof type at all considering it can be deducted from the
header.timestamp.Argument for removing it here: #337
Note that this is a breaking change. However, not more or less breaking than the (already!) removed
Nonefrom the Union in recent spec changes (but not implemented by clients, I assume).It might also need some db migration (might, as it depends on how data is stored, see comment #337 (comment)) or just db deletion. But again, same applies for the
Noneremoval.