Support withdrawals in t8n #614

rodiazet · 2023-04-11T13:02:23Z

Add support for withdrawals in t8n interface. It's required by execution-spec-tests
Tests

chfast · 2023-04-11T15:50:15Z

test/t8n/t8n.cpp


+            // Apply withdrawals. Amount value is in gwei.
+            for (const auto& withdraw : block.withdrawals)
+                state.touch(withdraw.first).balance += withdraw.second * 1000000000;


Are withdrawals applies before block finalization? I.e. are touched accounts possibly removed?

Spec says that amount is non-zero. So I will not be removed on finalizing. Am I right? https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4895

test/state/state.hpp

codecov · 2023-04-14T14:20:16Z

Codecov Report

Merging #614 (f062020) into master (4211942) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #614      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.29%   97.30%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          78       79       +1     
  Lines        7648     7679      +31     
==========================================
+ Hits         7441     7472      +31     
  Misses        207      207

Flag	Coverage Δ
blockchaintests	`65.16% <ø> (ø)`
statetests	`63.11% <53.84%> (-0.08%)`	⬇️
unittests	`94.86% <100.00%> (+0.02%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
test/state/state.cpp	`97.69% <100.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
test/state/state.hpp	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
test/statetest/statetest_loader.cpp	`89.69% <100.00%> (+0.31%)`	⬆️
test/statetest/statetest_runner.cpp	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
test/unittests/state_transition.cpp	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
test/unittests/state_transition_block_test.cpp	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
...est/unittests/statetest_loader_block_info_test.cpp	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

axic · 2023-04-14T23:11:19Z

test/state/state.hpp

    [[nodiscard]] const auto& get_accounts() const noexcept { return m_accounts; }
 };

+using Withdrawals = std::vector<std::pair<address, uint64_t>>;


Not necessary but perhaps a comment explaining what the value is and what range it has is useful (e.g. in gwei).

I think better will be to just define single using Withdrawal = std::pair<address, uint64_t>. But at this point a struct with named fields will do better.

chfast · 2023-04-18T08:57:50Z

test/state/state.hpp

    [[nodiscard]] const auto& get_accounts() const noexcept { return m_accounts; }
 };

+using Withdrawals = std::vector<std::pair<address, uint64_t>>;


I think better will be to just define single using Withdrawal = std::pair<address, uint64_t>. But at this point a struct with named fields will do better.

test/statetest/statetest_loader.cpp

test/t8n/t8n.cpp

axic · 2023-04-20T10:13:56Z

test/state/state.cpp

+
+    // Apply withdrawals. Amount value is in gwei.
+    for (const auto& withdraw : withdrawals)
+        state.touch(withdraw.first).balance += intx::uint256{withdraw.second} * 1000000000;


Not sure if this is better but avoids counting zeroes:

Suggested change

state.touch(withdraw.first).balance += intx::uint256{withdraw.second} * 1000000000;

state.touch(withdraw.first).balance += intx::uint256{withdraw.second} * 1e9;

Not sure what is our preference in the codebase, @chfast.

Could also have constexpr helpers like from_gwei, which also removes the need for comments.

test/state/state.hpp

axic · 2023-04-20T11:51:30Z

test/unittests/statetest_loader_block_info_test.cpp

+    EXPECT_EQ(bi.withdrawals[0].recipient, 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000100_address);
+    EXPECT_EQ(bi.withdrawals[0].amount, 0x800000000);
+    EXPECT_EQ(bi.withdrawals[1].recipient, 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000200_address);
+    EXPECT_EQ(bi.withdrawals[1].amount, 0xffffffffffffffff);


If we have the amount_wei helper, could also check for the output that here.

test/state/state.hpp

chfast · 2023-04-20T14:57:21Z

test/state/state.hpp

+    }
+};
+
+using Withdrawals = std::vector<Withdrawal>;


This is not needed.

chfast · 2023-04-20T14:59:48Z

test/unittests/state_transition_create_test.cpp

    expect.post[create_address].code = bytes{0xFE};
 }
+
+TEST_F(state_transition, apply_withdrawal)


This should not be in "create" test suite. You need a new file, e.g. "block" or "env".

chfast · 2023-04-20T15:01:28Z

test/unittests/statetest_loader_block_info_test.cpp

+    EXPECT_EQ(bi.number, 0);
+    EXPECT_EQ(bi.withdrawals.size(), 2);
+    EXPECT_EQ(bi.withdrawals[0].recipient, 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000100_address);
+    EXPECT_EQ(bi.withdrawals[0].get_amount(), intx::uint256{0x800000000} * 1'000'000'000);


I think you should rather test .amount_in_gwei here.

I wanted to test get_mount in one go too, but I can add additional check for gwei value only.

chfast · 2023-04-20T15:01:53Z

test/state/state.hpp

+struct Withdrawal
+{
+    address recipient;
+    /// The amount is denominated in gwei.


Suggested change

/// The amount is denominated in gwei.

/// The amount is denominated in gwei.

or use ///<.

chfast

Please squash.

axic

Looks good to me but please address @chfast's comments first.

Co-authored-by: Alex Beregszaszi <[email protected]>

rodiazet requested a review from chfast April 11, 2023 13:02

chfast reviewed Apr 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

chfast requested changes Apr 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

test/state/state.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rodiazet force-pushed the withdrawals-t8n branch 2 times, most recently from f942863 to 815339a Compare April 14, 2023 14:12

axic reviewed Apr 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

chfast reviewed Apr 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

rodiazet force-pushed the withdrawals-t8n branch 3 times, most recently from adf1def to 08cb281 Compare April 18, 2023 09:44

axic reviewed Apr 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

test/state/state.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rodiazet force-pushed the withdrawals-t8n branch 2 times, most recently from ab1c40c to 02e6b21 Compare April 20, 2023 10:33

axic force-pushed the withdrawals-t8n branch 8 times, most recently from 0fa05d0 to fe96d0e Compare April 20, 2023 11:50

axic reviewed Apr 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

rodiazet force-pushed the withdrawals-t8n branch from b6435c7 to 849d4f6 Compare April 20, 2023 13:42

chfast requested changes Apr 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

rodiazet force-pushed the withdrawals-t8n branch from 849d4f6 to 0150610 Compare April 20, 2023 15:36

chfast approved these changes Apr 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

axic approved these changes Apr 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

Support withdrawals in t8n

f062020

Co-authored-by: Alex Beregszaszi <[email protected]>

rodiazet force-pushed the withdrawals-t8n branch from 0150610 to f062020 Compare April 21, 2023 08:53

rodiazet merged commit 62fb126 into master Apr 21, 2023

rodiazet deleted the withdrawals-t8n branch April 21, 2023 09:12

	state.touch(withdraw.first).balance += intx::uint256{withdraw.second} * 1000000000;
	state.touch(withdraw.first).balance += intx::uint256{withdraw.second} * 1e9;

	/// The amount is denominated in gwei.

	/// The amount is denominated in gwei.

Support withdrawals in t8n #614

Support withdrawals in t8n #614

Uh oh!

Conversation

rodiazet commented Apr 11, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Apr 14, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

axic Apr 14, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

axic Apr 20, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rodiazet Apr 20, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chfast left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

axic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

rodiazet commented Apr 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Apr 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

axic Apr 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

axic Apr 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rodiazet Apr 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading