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

Add Fulu boilerplate #6695

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025
Merged

Add Fulu boilerplate #6695

merged 17 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025

Conversation

macladson
Copy link
Member

@macladson macladson commented Dec 14, 2024

Proposed Changes

Adds Fulu fork boilerplate.

Additional Info

This makes no attempt to unify Fulu with PeerDAS. This will need to be a separate PR.

@macladson macladson added the work-in-progress PR is a work-in-progress label Dec 14, 2024
@dapplion
Copy link
Collaborator

dapplion commented Jan 7, 2025

@macladson I've applied the fork_enabled pattern on the remaining places where it is possible in this commit a543765 please review and consider cherry-picking into this PR

To motivate my case against the match fork_name:

  • Relying on the type system to direct our dev attention to certain places would make sense ONLY if we add a new variant to ForkName once the fork is fully spec'ed. Otherwise (like here, now) we just fill all those match cases assuming the fork is empty, losing the all benefits of this approach. Let's accept that we are unlikely to wait for a full spec before adding the boilerplate.

@macladson
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the commit! I agree with your reasoning and I've cherry-picked it into the main branch.

I ended up reverting the web3signer.rs changes as it actually uses a local variant of ForkName not types::ForkName so to remove that boilerplate, we'd either need to write a mapping from types::ForkName => web3signer::ForkName or rewrite the web3signer to use types::ForkName. I can't comment on why types::ForkName was chosen in the first place, but either way, it feels out of scope for this PR.

@macladson macladson added ready-for-review The code is ready for review fulu Required for the upcoming Fulu hard fork and removed work-in-progress PR is a work-in-progress labels Jan 7, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@dapplion dapplion left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great! Send it

Copy link
Member

@jimmygchen jimmygchen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice work @macladson and thanks for the review @dapplion! I've added a few more comments, let me know what you think. I think we can merge this soon 🎉

beacon_node/beacon_chain/src/fulu_readiness.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lcli/src/mock_el.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
beacon_node/beacon_chain/src/test_utils.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
beacon_node/execution_layer/src/engine_api/http.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
consensus/types/src/config_and_preset.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
consensus/types/src/beacon_state.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
testing/ef_tests/src/cases/operations.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
testing/ef_tests/src/cases/operations.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
consensus/types/src/beacon_block.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@jimmygchen jimmygchen added waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels Jan 9, 2025
@macladson macladson requested a review from jxs as a code owner January 9, 2025 05:24
@macladson macladson added ready-for-review The code is ready for review and removed waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. labels Jan 9, 2025
@jimmygchen jimmygchen added the ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. label Jan 9, 2025
Copy link
Member

@jimmygchen jimmygchen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great, thanks @macladson!

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 10, 2025

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

Pull request #6695 has been dequeued by a dequeue command.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@mergify dequeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 10, 2025

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: pull request dequeued.

Pull request #6695 has been dequeued by a dequeue command

You should look at the reason for the failure and decide if the pull request needs to be fixed or if you want to requeue it.

If you want to requeue this pull request, you need to post a comment with the text: @mergifyio requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 10, 2025

dequeue

✅ The pull request has been removed from the queue default

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@mergify requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 10, 2025

requeue

✅ This pull request will be re-embarked automatically

The followup queue command will be automatically executed to re-embark the pull request

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 10, 2025

queue

🛑 The pull request has been removed from the queue default

Pull request #6695 has been dequeued by a dequeue command.

You can take a look at Queue: Embarked in merge queue check runs for more details.

In case of a failure due to a flaky test, you should first retrigger the CI.
Then, re-embark the pull request into the merge queue by posting the comment
@mergifyio refresh on the pull request.

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 10, 2025
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@mergify dequeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 10, 2025

This pull request has been removed from the queue for the following reason: pull request dequeued.

Pull request #6695 has been dequeued by a dequeue command

You should look at the reason for the failure and decide if the pull request needs to be fixed or if you want to requeue it.

If you want to requeue this pull request, you need to post a comment with the text: @mergifyio requeue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 10, 2025

dequeue

✅ The pull request has been removed from the queue default

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@macladson this needs some updates for the clippy lints https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/actions/runs/12702656555/job/35409240281?pr=6785

@michaelsproul michaelsproul added the waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. label Jan 10, 2025
@macladson macladson removed the waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. label Jan 10, 2025
@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

@mergify queue

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 10, 2025

queue

✅ The pull request has been merged automatically

The pull request has been merged automatically at ecdf2d8

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 10, 2025
@mergify mergify bot merged commit ecdf2d8 into sigp:unstable Jan 10, 2025
26 of 30 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
fulu Required for the upcoming Fulu hard fork ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants