Conversation
alloy & reth v1.2.0
src/server.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| enum PayloadVersion { | ||
| V3, | ||
| V4(Vec<Bytes>), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
instead of the payload version encapsulating the execution requests for the v4 new payload request, why not have a structure that encapsulates all the args for the new_payload method as an enum
There was a problem hiding this comment.
payload version will just contain the version
enum PayloadVersion {
V3,
V4,
and new payload will accept an envelope
new_payload_v4() {
let res = self
.new_payload(
OpExecutionPayloadEnvelope{
OpExecutionPayloadEnvelopeV4{
execution_requests,
payload,
versioned_hashes,
parent_beacon_block_root,
}
}
)
.await;
}
new_payload_v3() {
let res = self
.new_payload(
OpExecutionPayloadEnvelope{
OpExecutionPayloadEnvelopeV3{
payload,
versioned_hashes,
parent_beacon_block_root,
}
}
)
.await;
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OpExecutionenvelopeV(3/4) is from Alloy and fields are not similar to calls of new_payload but followed another approach in 4eb5e51
src/client.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| pub async fn new_payload_v4( | ||
| &self, | ||
| payload: ExecutionPayloadV3, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be OpExecutionPayloadV4
Reth Implementation:
https://github.com/paradigmxyz/reth/blob/a765af9e6b7cf1b0332bb1d132ed09530f055c42/crates/optimism/rpc/src/engine.rs#L82
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The v4 Engine API to my understanding is introduced in the isthmus hard fork adding an additional withdrawalsRoot to the execution payload
https://specs.optimism.io/protocol/isthmus/exec-engine.html
This deviates from the v4 engine api on l1
src/server.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| async fn new_payload_v4( | ||
| &self, | ||
| payload: ExecutionPayloadV3, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here - should be OpExecutionPayloadV4 I believe
|
@mkykadir is attempting to deploy a commit to the Flashbots Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
`OpExecutionPayloadV4` for `new_payload_v4`
|
could you add an integration test for v4 support? |
|
Hey, thank you for the contribution. I am closing this in favour of #159 which is rebased on top of main. |
4 participants
No description provided.